ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Local Government Funding (Services)

Dave Watts: What recent assessment he has made of the likely change in the provision of services by local authorities as a result of reductions in the level of Government funding to such authorities.

Eric Pickles: We have given councils much greater flexibility and the financial autonomy to manage their budgets. If they share back-office services, join forces to get better value for money, cut excessive chief executive pay, and root out waste and fraud, they can protect key front-line services.

Dave Watts: I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but does it not demonstrate that he is miles away from the reality of what is happening in the streets? My local authority, which is one of the most efficient and a four-star authority that has frozen its council tax for four years, is faced with 500 job losses, massive cuts in most of its services and a £28 million loss in spending in its local economy. What is he going to do about that?

Eric Pickles: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has many duties in this House, but perhaps he should have spoken to his council leader, Councillor Marie Rimmer, who says:
	“most job losses”
	will be
	“achieved by not filling posts, early retirement and voluntary redundancies”,
	which is hardly the position that he paints. It is also telling that Sally Yeoman, the chief executive of Halton and St Helens Voluntary and Community Action, blames the drop in funding on the ending of the working neighbourhoods fund—a fund that the Labour party had decided to end in March.

Tracey Crouch: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating councils that have protected front-line services through creative and innovative thinking about their budgets, such as Medway council, which has halved its funding to trade unions and given that money to fund library books instead?

Eric Pickles: I do indeed congratulate them. My hon. Friend points out to those on the Opposition Benches a way in which money can be directed towards the front line. I hope that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will send out requests that Labour councils similarly look towards trade unions and reducing their costs.

Jack Dromey: The Secretary of State has described his cuts as progressive, fair and protecting the most vulnerable. Last Friday, Conservative-led Birmingham city council inflicted the biggest cut in local government history of £212 million. Some 4,000 people face losing their care packages, including some of the most vulnerable, many of whom are in ill health and in the twilight of their years. Is that progressive, fair and protecting the most vulnerable?

Eric Pickles: Let us be absolutely clear: these are Labour cuts. The Labour party was planning £14 billion-worth of cuts, all of them front-loaded. At least we changed the formula to help the most vulnerable. We find ourselves in a position where we know perfectly well that the Labour party would have inflicted even greater cuts on local government.

New Homes Bonus

Jason McCartney: What assessment he has made of the potential benefits to Kirklees district of the new homes bonus.

Mark Pawsey: What assessment he has made of the potential benefits to Rugby of the new homes bonus.

Richard Graham: What assessment he has made of the potential benefits to Gloucester of the new homes bonus.

Heidi Alexander: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on regions in England of the new homes bonus.

Grant Shapps: Today, I have announced the final allocations to local authorities under the new homes bonus for 2011-12. All parts of England will receive significant funding from the scheme. Kirklees will receive £1.3 million, Rugby £435,000 and Gloucester £782,000. The funding is completely un-ring-fenced and councils will be able to use it according to the wishes of their local communities.

Jason McCartney: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm the protection of the green belt and will he consider the suggestion from the Campaign to Protect Rural England perhaps to have an enhanced rate of new homes bonus for brownfield sites to encourage regeneration?

Grant Shapps: I looked carefully at the new homes bonus and at where there should be an uplift and I came to the conclusion that the only uplift we would give would be to those who built additional affordable homes, and that is a block grant of £350 per home. The green belt is entirely protected; that is in the coalition agreement and we stand by that position.

Mark Pawsey: The local authority in my constituency of Rugby has been quick to recognise the benefits that come with the new homes bonus and it has ambitious proposals for new housing development. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that planning authorities across England recognise the lead of authorities such as Rugby and allocate land for the new homes that are so badly needed?

Grant Shapps: In many ways, authorities such as Rugby have led the way by being so keen to produce housing. The difference is that now every single one of our constituents gets to benefit from new homes being built. There is £200 million on the table that is being distributed today. I note that the Opposition seem to be against their own authorities receiving the money.

Richard Graham: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether more could be done, perhaps on the paperwork, in order to attract developers into constituencies such as mine, which are entirely urban and therefore have only brownfield sites to offer?

Grant Shapps: One of the changes that we have made is to enable local authorities to set their own targets for brownfield sites. I have been to my hon. Friend’s constituency and I know that there are many good sites available. Rather than housing being built on sites where the regional spatial strategy seemed to insist that it went, housing can now go where it is required. Much of that will be on the brownfield land that I went to see. That is one of the features of the Government’s policy, and of the new homes bonus in particular.

Heidi Alexander: Last week the Minister for Housing and Local Government wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and claimed that the new homes bonus will not penalise deprived areas to favour more affluent ones. Can he explain to me why his figures differ so widely from those of the National Housing Federation, which estimates that the four northern regions of England will lose £104 million, whereas the five southern regions will gain £342 million?

Grant Shapps: It may have escaped the attention of Opposition Members that the new homes bonus rewards the authorities that build homes. That is why it is called the new homes bonus. Of the five areas that are building the most homes—the five top councils to receive the new homes bonus—three of them are in the midlands and the north.

Clive Betts: The Government’s stated objective is to ensure that more new homes are built than were being built before the recession. I am sure that it is an objective with which we can all agree. However, if the new homes bonus does
	not incentivise individual authorities sufficiently so that the sum total of all the individual parts does not meet the Government’s objective, what is plan B?

Grant Shapps: The point about the new homes bonus is that it is just one element in a series of steps that we are taking to ensure that house building goes ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention that it slumped to the lowest level since 1924 under the old top-down targets. The new homes bonus will ensure that £200 million is distributed today, but it does not stop there. We are also proposing build now, pay later. We are slimming down some of the many regulations that prevent house builders from getting homes built faster, and we are encouraging them to renegotiate section 106.

Alison Seabeck: It is getting worse.

Grant Shapps: The hon. Lady says that it is not working, but we have already seen an increase in the number of homes planned and starting to be built.

Bob Ainsworth: The Ansty technology park is in Rugby and the Government announced on Friday that they would sell it off. That was an important job-creation opportunity brought into existence by the old regional development agency which was scrapped by the Government. Would it not be preposterous if Rugby gained from the new homes bonus through developing such a site for housing?

Grant Shapps: The new homes bonus is entirely flexible to allow local authorities to decide how the cash that comes in is spent—those hundreds of millions of pounds being distributed today—so that they can take it and use it for their own objectives. There is a conversation to be held locally rather than nationally about how that money is used in Rugby.

Community and Voluntary Sectors

Julie Hilling: What assessment he has made of the likely effect on the community and voluntary sectors of reductions in the level of Government funding for local authorities.

Greg Clark: Spending decisions are a matter for local councils, but no council should make disproportionate cuts to the voluntary sector. It is increasingly clear that well run councils are following that principle, but that a few of the worst run are targeting the voluntary sector for disproportionate cuts.

Julie Hilling: On Friday I met representatives of Westhoughton visiting service who, having lost a third of their budget, do not know where to turn to make sure that their elderly clients get the support they need. That is one of the many voluntary and community sector groups that have contacted me in desperation. I hope that the Minister does not reply by saying that Bolton council should have prepared for the cuts or should protect the voluntary sector, because it did and it has, but the Government have cut £42 million—three
	times more than Labour would have cut. If the council does not have the money, it cannot give it to groups. What can I say to these groups?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady can start by getting her figures accurate. This is the second time in a row that she has come to the House with bizarre figures. I was at a loss to understand where she got them from, but the source of her information turns out to be a magazine called the Bolton Scene. It is not a paper of record. In between obituaries for fish—“Farewell to popular fish”—it includes all sorts of misinformation about the settlement for her council. If she sources her information accurately, she will discover that the cut to Bolton’s budget is 7% and the council should not be cutting local groups disproportionately.

Henry Smith: My right hon. Friend has made great efforts to ensure that local authorities publish their spend above £500. Will he extend that to urge local authorities to publish the amount of their spend that is given to voluntary organisations? I think that that transparency would be very worth while.

Greg Clark: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, although there is one council that has failed to publish its spending over £500: Nottingham city council. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) squirmed and wriggled rather than urge the council to publish those details. I hope that she will take the opportunity today to say that it should publish them.

Barbara Keeley: Well, here we have Ministers again castigating local councils for cuts affecting voluntary organisations, but the Cabinet Office is cutting grants to many volunteering organisations, Government cuts to legal aid funding will have a serious impact on Citizens Advice and the VAT rise and loss of gift aid transitional relief will cost the sector £250 million. Does the Minister not see just how hypocritical that stance is toward local authorities? When will the Government get their act together on supporting the voluntary sector?

Greg Clark: Of course, the hon. Lady never saw a piece of spending that she did not like. The hypocrisy is to complain about the inevitable consequences of the previous Government’s overspending. As she has the opportunity, perhaps she will just nod and agree that no council—for example, a Labour council looking to her for leadership—should cut disproportionately. It is a time for leadership from the Opposition Front-Bench team. If they want to hang around like ghouls, wailing and moaning from the sidelines, they can do so, but they should take a lead and give a message to Labour councils.

Mr Speaker: Order. To date there has been no breach of order from either the Opposition Front Bench or the Treasury Bench, but I remind hon. and right hon. Members that they should be very careful in their use of the word “hypocrisy”.

Government Funding (Distribution)

Chuka Umunna: What assessment he has made of the equity of the distribution of Government funding for local authorities.

Andrew Stunell: The local government settlement is a fair outcome in very difficult circumstances—those circumstances being that we are borrowing £400 million every day to plug the gap left by Labour. We have worked hard to get equity between local authorities, giving proper attention to both their level of dependency on Government support and their local resources. That is why we have transferred the needs-based element from 73% to 83% of the formula grant and introduced the banded floors. As a result, for every pound per resident of formula grant that goes to the least dependent authority in London—Richmond—Lambeth will get £4.86, which is almost five times as much per resident as the least dependent authority.
	As far as equity for local taxpayers goes, the council tax freeze will provide £2.4 million to Lambeth this coming year.

Chuka Umunna: Of course, the fact is that the most deprived single-tier local authorities are seeing their spending power reduced by nearly four times the amount of the least deprived local authorities. For example, Lambeth—the Minister omitted this point—is having to make just under £40 million-worth of cuts to services in my area, including to Lambeth senior citizens day centre in Brixton Hill. That centre provides food and a place to go for—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems to be contagious. Both sides are taking too long. We will have a quick question from Mr Umunna.

Chuka Umunna: The older people’s centre is facing cuts of up to 80%. Will the Minister come with me to the centre and explain how he will help it to continue to survive in the coming financial year?

Andrew Stunell: According to Lambeth council’s own website, it is reducing its front-line service provision by £1 million, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is also increasing its reserves from £83 million last year to £93 million this year. Perhaps the question about equity would be better directed at the council than at us.

Richard Fuller: Some councils, many of them Labour-controlled, are protecting overpaid bureaucracies and slashing services run by the third sector, while others are embracing social enterprise and charities in new models of social services provision. Will the Minister recognise good behaviour in future allocations to get true equity to the people who need it?

Andrew Stunell: I thoroughly understand my hon. Friend's point, and as he will know, the local government resource review will look at those matters in the near future.
	[Official Report, 26 April 2011, Vol. 527, c. 2MC]

Chris Williamson: The wheels are well and truly coming off the Government’s explanation for their swingeing cuts to local government—that is pretty clear. Contrary to his assertion that he would protect the most vulnerable by making his cuts “fair and progressive”, the Secretary of State is actually imposing the biggest cuts on the country’s poorest
	communities and leaving more affluent areas relatively unscathed. Even his own Housing Minister confessed last week that the poorest areas will shoulder the harshest cuts. Will the Minister replying do the decent thing and admit that the Secretary of State’s declaration about fairness and the Chancellor’s assertion that we are all in it together are completely and utterly preposterous?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman has of course used a selective quotation, and that is entirely his prerogative, but it does rather undermine his case. The reality is that no local authority in this country faces a reduction in its real expenditure of more than 7.7%, and offset against that is the new homes bonus that we have announced today, through which Lambeth, for instance, gets £1.9 million.

Community Housing

Stephen Gilbert: What plans his Department has to establish trusts to assist communities in providing homes for local people.

Andrew Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and remind him that the Localism Bill, for which he and I served in Committee, contains provisions for the community right to build, which will allow community organisations to bring forward schemes for small-scale development, including housing, without needing to go through the traditional planning route. As he and I know, we hope to achieve Royal Assent for that at the end of the year.

Stephen Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the problems with housing supply is the availability of land, but the Government own vast tracts of land throughout the country, so has his Department given any consideration to bringing forward some public sector land to meet the housing crisis?

Andrew Stunell: I remind my hon. Friend that “The Plan for Growth” published last week by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Chancellor set out plans for the release of more public land, and this Department is very strongly engaged in making sure that that leads to more housing.

Home Ownership

Guto Bebb: What steps his Department is taking to support home ownership and first-time buyers.

Simon Hughes: What steps his Department is taking to support home ownership and first-time buyers.

Grant Shapps: At the Budget, we announced the Firstbuy scheme, which will be co-funded by the Government and house builders, bring £500 million of investment into the sector and build about 15,000 homes throughout the UK. In England, those figures are £200 million and 10,000. In addition, the Government’s commitment to reducing debt is perhaps the most important thing that
	we can do to create stability, and recently I held a first-time buyers summit to pull together the sector and ensure that progress is made.

Guto Bebb: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the new funding for the Firstbuy scheme will help the construction industry, creating new jobs and increasing the pace of economic growth?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, of course, and the scheme will do both those things. The critical difference between it and the schemes that the previous Government ran is that the person purchasing the house has to provide a deposit. In addition, the amount of money going in from the Government will be reduced to make it much better value for money.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister ensure that all the initiatives for first-time purchase and for shared ownership are well publicised in every local authority in England, and that the new homes bonus money can be used, where local authorities agree, for the maximum number of property builds and for the maximum number of people acquiring a property—through shared ownership or outright possession—for the first time?

Grant Shapps: I am very grateful for that question, not least because I am able to congratulate Southwark on today pulling in £2.6 million from the new homes bonus. That money certainly can be used in precisely the way it is required locally, and whatever the principal concerns are for local people. It is the way to incentivise more house building, and we will make sure that it works effectively alongside the Firstbuy scheme.

Toby Perkins: The Minister referred to the new scheme as relevant to the replacement of HomeBuy Direct, which as he is aware was the much more generous scheme that he scrapped just 10 months ago. Is this not another example of the Government introducing a new policy to make up for the fact that their previous policy has gone wrong?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. HomeBuy Direct continues until 2012, so there is no question of its having come to an end. It was a funded scheme for a specific period which will come to an end at that point, so by launching another scheme that overlaps rather than replaces it, we have, I assume, achieved precisely what he would want.

Alison Seabeck: I make my usual declaration of an indirect interest in the entry in the register for my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford).
	HomeBuy Direct was a good scheme, and considering that the Minister called it an “expensive flop” I am delighted that the Government have seen fit, albeit somewhat late in the day, to enhance it further and, in many ways, to replicate it. Can he confirm that, as the Financial Times reported, this is nothing more than his admitting that he cannot fix the mortgage market? Has he not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said, just wasted a vital 10 months, leaving hundreds of thousands of first-time buyers—not
	tens of thousands, given the sort of scheme we are describing—with no hope under this Government of securing their own homes?
	[Official Report, 9 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 5-6MC.]

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to clear up one thing. It is worth knowing that when I said that the HomeBuy Direct scheme had been an expensive flop, it had been launched 10 months earlier and had helped just five people to secure a home. It is true that the scheme has developed over a period of time and has helped people in between, but as I said in my previous answer—I appreciate that it was given after she had written her question, but none the less it is useful to connect the two—the previous scheme does not end until 2012. We are in 2011, and we have already announced a new scheme.

Unauthorised Development

Edward Leigh: If he will bring forward proposals to increase the powers of local authorities to tackle unauthorised development.

Eric Pickles: The Government take the problem of unauthorised development seriously. Among other measures, the Localism Bill, which completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons on 10 March, includes provisions aimed at strengthening local planning authorities’ powers to tackle the issue.

Edward Leigh: Unauthorised developments, particularly illegal Traveller sites, have poisoned relations in our communities. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will use to the full the new powers in his Localism Bill to ensure that local councils are given the powers they need to determine these issues on the basis of local need and historic demand, not imposed national quotas?

Eric Pickles: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. In addition, we will very shortly be consulting on the section 106 planning guidance, which deals with Gypsy and Traveller sites, and I hope that he will contribute to that consultation.

Bill Esterson: People in Hightown, Melling and Lydiate in my constituency are concerned at the possible development of the green belt. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm whether the new legislation will make it harder for developers to build on the green belt, and will he allay the fears of many people that it is a developers’ charter?

Eric Pickles: No, the way in which we intend to deal with problems of unauthorised developments is to get tougher. We are doing four things. We are going to deal with the question of concealed buildings and those who seek to hide a dwelling behind a construction; we will be increasing the penalties; we are going to ensure that people can appeal either for an enforcement order or a retrospective planning application, not both; and we are going to increase the ability to deal with fly-posting. Our general policy is this: we intend to ensure that the green belt is held solid and absolutely inviolate by this Administration. We are not going to follow the tenets of the former Labour Government by concreting over the green belt.

Social Housing

John Leech: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on levels of homelessness of the proposed changes to rules on the changes in the treatment of tenancies in under-occupied social housing.

Grant Shapps: The security and rights of existing social tenants, including those who are under-occupying, will be protected in the reform of social housing. I have announced a £13 million scheme to help local authorities to offer tenants greater flexibility in their choices.

John Leech: I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he accept that the allocations policies of some local authorities, including Manchester, result in larger, hard-to-let properties being under-occupied through no fault of the new tenants? Given the one reasonable offer rule, surely some existing tenants will no longer be able to afford to stay in their property, and some potential tenants will not be able to afford to take the one reasonable offer.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are problems with the allocation policy at the moment. One thing that we plan to do through the Localism Bill is to provide much greater flexibility to allocations. For example, if somebody is seeking to move home within the sector, they should not have to join the back of the regular queue. In addition, by the end of this year we will have set up a mobility scheme, which will cover 90% of homes in this country.

Mr Speaker: David Morris is not here. The grouping therefore falls and Mr Ruffley’s question will follow later.

Green Spaces

Barry Sheerman: What steps his Department is taking to protect green spaces from development.

Greg Clark: The coalition Government have moved fast to enable communities to protect their green spaces. Three measures stand out. The first is the end to the perverse classification of gardens as brownfield land, which has led to the destructive practice of garden grabbing. The second is the abolition of density targets so that developers have greater freedom to provide homes with gardens. The third is the introduction of neighbourhood plans, which will allow local people to safeguard green spaces and incorporate them in their vision of their community.

Barry Sheerman: Can the Minister therefore explain to me what on earth the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking about in his Budget speech? One of the most important parts of the speech was on how he would free up the country to developers. Most people in Huddersfield now know that their green spaces—not green belt, but green spaces—are vulnerable to being built on.

Greg Clark: Of course they are not. At the moment, the regional strategies place a threat over communities, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is a great localist, and he and I agree on this. I commend his blog to those on the Opposition Front Bench, who are chuntering away. There is a very persuasive piece on this matter under the title “The party I love is a party of ideals. That’s why I back David Miliband”. It states:
	“I’ve always wanted to be in a party rooted in our diverse communities…nourished and reinvigorated by the ideas and aspirations that stem from our grass roots.”
	We are giving the grass roots the right to determine the future of their green spaces, something for which I welcome his support.

James Gray: Rural buffer zones and other planning designations protect areas such as my constituency from the westward expansion of Swindon. Does the Minister agree that, leaving aside the green belt, we have all kinds of ways in which to protect our countryside from excessive building?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right that development must be sustainable and must not compromise the ability of future generations to enjoy the environment that we have. The Government’s policy has always been clear in that regard.

Local Government (Employment)

Nicholas Dakin: What assessment he has made of the likely effects of reductions in Government funding on the number of people employed by local authorities in 2011-12.

Bob Neill: The Department makes no such centralised estimates for the good reason that it is for individual councils to make their own decisions about how their local work forces are organised and managed to ensure the efficient delivery of services for local taxpayers.

Nicholas Dakin: The Tory-led Local Government Association has made the estimate, however, that 140,000 jobs will go as a result of these policies. PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that for every job lost in the public sector, one will go in the private sector. That makes almost 300,000 jobs. How on earth can that help the recovery?

Bob Neill: That is because the Government are committed to reducing the deficit to enable a proper and sustainable private sector-led recovery. That is no doubt why the Office for Budget Responsibility has demonstrated that there will be an increase in private sector jobs of 1.3 million over the same period. That is nearly four times the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman.

Charlie Elphicke: Is it not the case that if councils used their reserves more effectively, unlike Manchester city council, and did not keep sending officers out of the door at half a million a pop, like Nottingham city council, so many jobs would not have to be lost?

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government have made it abundantly clear that significant sums are held by local authorities in reserves, much of which is not allocated. Sensible use of those funds at a time of financial crisis would enable councils to protect their front-line services.

Leisure Facilities

Alec Shelbrooke: What recent representations he has received on local authority funding for leisure facilities.

Bob Neill: We have received four parliamentary questions and a number of letters that included references to local leisure facilities.

Alec Shelbrooke: May I urge the Minister to take a closer look at Labour-led Leeds city council, which is cutting funding to Garforth leisure centre in my constituency yet continues to waste taxpayers’ money, such as £6 million on new furniture?

Bob Neill: I hope the council did not go to the same suppliers that gave our Department the sofas and the peace pod. I note that Leeds city council has £32 million in its reserves, and I hope that it might consider a use for that money to support facilities in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Local Authority Executive Pay

David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received on the levels of remuneration for local government executives.

Eric Pickles: Representations have been received from Members of Parliament, leaders of local authorities, trade union branches and members of the public. Although it is a matter for individual councils, we expect restraint and leadership to be shown locally when setting senior pay. We have introduced measures in the Localism Bill to increase local democratic accountability for decisions on senior pay. We have also been consulting on proposed new transparency arrangements for local government, including how public money is used in relation to senior pay.

David Ruffley: Forty-three per cent. of chief executives are paid more than the Prime Minister, and their pay has increased by more than 78% in the past five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this culture of excessive pay is a direct result of the last Labour Government’s consistent ability to spend more than this country could afford?

Eric Pickles: I entirely agree. Chief executives’ pay has got completely out of kilter. There are now 800 local government employees in the top 1% of all earners according to Will Hutton’s figures. With regard to the chief executive of Suffolk, that county does many fine things and is an exemplar authority in many ways, but
	the chief executive’s refusal to take a pay cut has meant that she has detracted from Suffolk’s many fine achievements.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Secretary of State look in particular at the case of Mr Nick Johnson, who for the past four years has supplemented his local government ill health retirement pension by being paid £1,000 a day by Hammersmith and Fulham council, so that when he leaves later this year he will have taken almost £1 million from taxpayers? In doing so, will the Secretary of State ignore the fact that the local Conservative party says that Mr Johnson is good value for money, and that he has advised the Tory party on housing policy?

Eric Pickles: I kind of understand that it has never been a glad morning since the hon. Gentleman lost his position as housing chairman at Hammersmith. Frankly, abusing somebody from the safety of this Chamber does him no credit at all.

Council Tax

Christopher Pincher: What change in band D council tax he expects (a) on average in local authorities in England and (b) in Tamworth borough between 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Eric Pickles: Average band D council tax for all local authorities in England, including Tamworth, is unchanged between 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. By sharing back-office services with Lichfield district council and by bearing down on furniture and other equipment costs, Tamworth borough council has managed to keep council tax frozen, reduce its spending and ensure that it is doing a good job. Will my right hon. Friend please commend the Conservative-controlled council, and its retiring value-for-money chief executive David Weatherley, for the work that they have done?

Eric Pickles: Of course my hon. Friend has much to be proud of in Tamworth council. It clearly cares about front-line services and is not prepared, as some Labour councils have been, to use the poor as a battering ram against the Government for base political motives.

Section 106 Revenue

Caroline Nokes: What plans he has for the future of rules governing the use of section 106 moneys collected by local authorities.

Greg Clark: The Government are committed to delivering a simplified, locally driven planning system that supports sustainable economic growth and development. A key part of that is the framework that ensures that local communities benefit directly from development. We intend to retain section 106
	agreements in a scaled-back form, alongside the community infrastructure levy, to fund local infrastructure and community facilities.

Caroline Nokes: Given that commitment to empowering local people, is there any intention to provide greater flexibility to parish councils, such as Sherfield English parish council, which desperately want to use accumulated section 106 moneys, but cannot do so under current rules?

Greg Clark: The answer is yes. The Localism Bill centres on giving greater discretion to local communities to use the funds that come with developments so that they can invest in infrastructure locally. We know that one of the sources of opposition to development is people’s reasonable fear that they will not get the infrastructure that the development requires. We are changing that through the Bill.

Duncan Hames: A recent scrutiny report at Wiltshire council revealed that it had failed to claim £16 million of section 106 agreements to date. Given the pressures on councils to spend on and invest in the infrastructure in their communities, does the Minister agree that now would be a good time to make such claims?

Greg Clark: It would be an excellent time. My hon. Friend’s suggestion should apply to councils throughout the country.

Mr Speaker: I call Robert Halfon. He is not here. I therefore call David Rutley to ask Question 21.

David Rutley: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has just entered the Chamber. He is only just in time, but he is here.

Council Tax

Robert Halfon: What recent estimate he has made of the average change to council tax bills for households in (a) Harlow, (b) Epping Forest and (c) Essex between 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Eric Pickles: It is good to see my hon. Friend in his usual place.
	Council tax bills for Harlow, Epping Forest and Essex are unchanged between 2010-11 and 2011-12. That pleases me, too, as my hon. Friend and I are constituency neighbours and share Epping Forest and Essex.

Robert Halfon: It is the second year in a row that Harlow council has frozen council tax without having a major impact on front-line services. Will the Secretary of State meet Harlow councillors to learn how their example can be spread throughout the country?

Eric Pickles: As my hon. Friend is my neighbour, it will obviously be a pleasure to visit an exemplar council, which is doing the right thing: protecting front-line services and keeping down the council tax.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr David Rutley, whose patience is rewarded.

Efficiency Savings

David Rutley: What mechanisms his Department is using to achieve efficiency savings in its budget for 2011-12.

Eric Pickles: My Department will deliver efficiency savings in the next financial year by driving down our core running costs and through key contracts that have been renegotiated. This is expected to deliver efficiency savings of around £11 million: £4.2 million from information technology, £6.5 million from buildings and £0.6 million from facilities management.

David Rutley: I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State is taking to realise efficiency savings and improve accountability and transparency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more must be done to create a real value-for-money culture in more local councils in the country, and that that aim should feature more strongly in public servants’ objectives so that it is reflected in their work in the communities and for council tax payers?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. It is particularly important for my Department to take a lead. That is why we have been so keen to reduce the central costs of our budgets and to take a lead in reorganising the Department to recognise its changing role, whereby it no longer dictates to local government, but tries to enable more power to go to local communities.

New Social Housing

Kerry McCarthy: What estimate his Department has made of the likely number of new social housing starts between May 2010 and April 2015.

Grant Shapps: We are investing £4.5 billion in new affordable housing over the next four years, with the hope of producing 150,000 new affordable homes.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his reply, although I note that he referred just to affordable housing, not to affordable social housing. Given the imminent publication of the Government’s child poverty strategy, what conversations has he had with colleagues in other Departments about the impact of the lack of affordable social housing on achieving our child poverty targets?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Lady is right to draw the subject to the House’s attention. It is sadly true that there were 45,000 fewer affordable social homes in this country following 13 years of her party’s being in power. I have had extensive conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that, in the next 13 years—or at least in the next four—a significantly greater number
	of social, affordable and all types of homes will be built across the social and regular housing sectors because this country needs homes, for which the new homes bonus will provide a significant boost.
	[Official Report, 8 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 3MC.]

David Ward: Does the Minister agree that special measures are likely to be required in areas such as Bradford, which has low market rents, because raising our rents up to the 80% level will yield no additional funds for new social housing starts?

Grant Shapps: Let us be clear that the existing social housing programme continues—£2.2 billion goes into that. An additional amount will go into affordable rent. Affordable rent does not mean 80% of market rent. The key words are “up to” 80% of the local market rent, meaning that in some areas, the figures will be somewhere in between social rent and the market rent, but not necessarily 80%.

Nick Raynsford: May I draw attention to my entry in the register?
	Will the Minister admit that he will not build any social rented homes at all, and that the ones that will be built are all inherited from the previous Government? His policy of so-called affordable rented homes—at 80% of market rents—will not produce any social rent properties, and even worse, it will require the conversion of former social rent properties to so-called affordable rent properties when they become available for re-let. That means no new affordable social rented homes, and more people waiting for a home that they can afford.

Grant Shapps: It seems obvious to me that if homes are not built today or at least at the time of the election, and we subsequently build them, they will be counted in the homes that we build. The fact that we have decided to continue to put £2.2 billion into the build programme in addition to the affordable rent programme means that we will out-build the previous Labour Government not just over four years, but in comparison to their 13 years, in every single year.

Shared Ownership Schemes

Jane Ellison: What steps his Department is taking to increase the flexibility of access to shared ownership schemes for first-time buyers.

Grant Shapps: The Government are committed to supporting those who aspire to own their own homes. As announced in the Budget, we are introducing the Firstbuy equity loan scheme, and the Homes and Communities Agency’s affordable housing programme in 2011 to 2015 will include affordable home ownership where appropriate in local circumstances.

Jane Ellison: I very much welcome that additional flexibility. Some of my constituents have said that they find existing schemes to be a bit over-bureaucratic, particularly as regards the relationship between where people live and where they work. I hope the Minister will look to new schemes to reduce the hurdles that face first-time buyers.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the bureaucratic burdens have become a complete nightmare. When the Labour party eventually gets to the point of reflecting on why it was booted out of power, it will realise that one reason was that the level of bureaucracy—the top-down diktats and the impossible paperwork before anyone could do almost anything in this country, particularly build homes—led to fewer homes being built than at any time post-war.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: I am sure the whole House would like to place on record its gratitude for the professionalism and commitment of the 60 firefighters who are deployed as part of the UK’s international search and rescue team assisting the victims of Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. With the number of dead and missing growing daily, our thoughts are with the brave Japanese people.
	The Budget revealed our plans to help support local enterprise and jobs, including the extension of the business rates holiday for small firms and small shops. The Department is the lead Department for enterprise zones, and we will make further announcements in the coming weeks. Letters detailing the first payments of the new homes bonus go out to local authorities today. The Department has published its plans for a future of local audit and delivery that is better value for money for taxpayers than the failed Audit Commission regime. The new rules to stop unfair competition from municipal newspapers are now in effect. I am sure that local press and the public noticed that Labour MPs voted en bloc to defend town hall Pravdas.

Mr Speaker: That was a very long answer, but I am sure they will be shorter in future.

Annette Brooke: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on those brave firefighters, and express sympathy for the people of Japan?
	With reference to the review of the statutory duties placed on local authorities, the Secretary of State will be aware that there is a great deal of concern among families with disabled children and young people. Can he give us some clarity on this matter, and confirm that no changes will be made to statutory duties relating to that group without formal consultation and a full impact assessment?

Eric Pickles: I think I can go further than that and tell my hon. Friend that we will not be making any changes to that duty. I am grateful to her for raising this issue because it comes out of an agreement between the Government parties and the Local Government Association in which we decided to get an audit of statutory duties. That has been established for the first time, but the fact that we have been able to count those numbers does not mean that we are going to make any significant reductions in them—certainly not in relation to the matters to which she has referred.

Caroline Flint: May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s comments about the people and firefighters in Japan? There, as in this country, the emergency services go towards danger to save others and our thoughts are with those in Japan at this time.
	It seems that with every passing day Ministers are being forced to rethink ill-thought-through policies. One Government policy that councillors and the public do not understand is the decision to front-load cuts to council budgets. Will the Secretary of State tell councillors, communities and Members of the House why it was necessary for the heaviest cuts to local government to fall in this first year?

Eric Pickles: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s remarks about our firefighters. May I respectfully remind her that the Labour party was due to introduce cuts this year and that local government was not protected and therefore would have faced higher cuts under Labour than under the coalition Government?

Caroline Flint: There is no evidence of that and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Labour would not have front-loaded the cuts to local government. As on many occasions, the Secretary of State has not answered the question and has left us with no idea why the front-loaded cuts were necessary. As was said earlier, the Housing Minister let slip that the Government knew all along that Labour councils representing the poorest areas of our country were getting the worst of the cuts. Is it fair that while the Secretary of State’s own local council loses just £17 per head this year, councils such as Manchester and Liverpool, which he has criticised, are losing nearly 10 times as much?

Eric Pickles: My local council has a budget that would have been lost in the sub-committees of Manchester city council. Labour’s Budget in March 2010 admitted there would be cuts to regional development agency regeneration, the working neighbourhoods fund, the local enterprise growth initiative, the housing and planning delivery grant and time-limited community programmes—and that was just the start. The front-loaded cuts from the Labour party would have meant £14 billion-worth of cuts falling in this year. Under Labour cuts, unprotected Departments would have received an average real-terms cut, over the spending review period, greater than those under the coalition’s deficit reduction plan.

Tim Farron: Because of mistakes made by Cumbria county council in its single status process, Cumbria’s outstanding teaching assistants face a 30% drop in pay and deprofessionalisation. Will the Minister meet me, representatives of Cumbria’s teaching assistants and the county council to find a solution to this impasse so that Cumbria’s teaching assistants can be fairly rewarded and Cumbria’s children can be properly supported?

Bob Neill: I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, but I am sure he will understand that the role of central Government in relation to local government pay and work force issues is extremely limited because they are rightly for local councillors to decide in local circumstances.

John Mann: Planning applications for wind farms, Travellers’ sites and new housing—which of those will parish councils be given a veto over and when?

Bob Neill: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the publication of the details of our national planning policy framework, which will set out the parameters within which all local plans will be drawn up.

Tony Baldry: Parish councils are an important part of the structure of local government, but they often feel that they have to take an unfair and disproportionate regulatory burden, the latest of which is that they will all be obliged to employ their parish clerks, with all that entails, such as making national insurance contributions, although many such clerks get only an honorarium, which they could easily declare in their annual personal tax return. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend remarks on an issue of some importance, particularly to smaller parishes. I am a little surprised that some of the professional organisations associated with parish councils have welcomed the move, but I think it would be sensible for my hon. Friend to meet me and a Treasury Minister to see if we can sort this matter out.

Graham Jones: In June, east Lancashire was hit hardest by the area-based grant reductions, and in October, it was again hit hardest by the reductions in the support grant and the axing of the housing market renewal programme. Today we find out that east Lancashire authorities feature in the bottom 27 for payouts under the new homes bonus. In fact, my Conservative council is to receive just £62,000—despite being one of the most deprived in the country—out of 350 authorities. It is understandable why—we have 1,300 empty properties and a Conservative council—but does the Secretary of State accept that the new homes bonus is unfair and hitting the deprived hard?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have done what he asked us to do, which is to bring those empty homes into the new homes bonus and turn empty homes into property. He and the House also need to understand that the allocation of the new homes bonus is about building houses or bringing derelict houses back into use. It is not on the basis of permissions; it is about getting things built. My advice to him is to get back to his council and tell it to get building.

Duncan Hames: In last week’s Budget debate, the Secretary of State told the House that at the heart of his approach to planning was a presumption in favour of sustainable development. What does he understand sustainable development to be?

Greg Clark: It is a very good question. The Brundtland commission captured the classic definition of sustainable development, which is development that does not compromise the needs of future generations in meeting the needs of the present generation.

Gloria De Piero: Ministers will have seen the wealth of evidence showing that increased street lighting leads to lower levels of crime, so do they share my concern that Nottinghamshire county council wants to reduce street lighting and will they join me in urging it to think again?

Eric Pickles: My own local authority is considering similar measures, and providing that that is done at a reasonable time, in the early hours of the morning, it is a sensible move towards greening our provision. However, in places where there are difficulties with crime, I would expect local consultation to take place.

Damian Hinds: Can the Minister give an update on the expected timing of a further announcement on the proposed eco-town at Bordon, and does he agree that there should be a local referendum before any large-scale development there takes place?

Grant Shapps: Just to be clear, my hon. Friend raises an important subject, because eco-towns were being pushed on to areas without local communities having any say about them. Indeed, there was even a separate planning policy statement about eco-homes under the previous Government. We are not in the game of pushing communities into building homes in ways that are not compatible or sustainable locally. I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend’s local authority will want to take notice of all local opinions and balance that against things such as the new homes bonus benefits, which it will get from building new homes.

Simon Danczuk: Does the Secretary of State still believe that abolishing the Audit Commission will provide savings of £50 million a year, or has that figure been revised?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman raises a point about the abolition of the Audit Commission, which I see is still going out to promote its cause in the weekend newspapers. The reality is that we need local audit that is efficient and brings competition into the marketplace. We see no reason whatever to have the country’s fifth biggest auditor owned by this Government.

John Leech: I was shocked to hear in the media that disabled people under-occupying homes will have their housing benefit cut. Can the Minister either dispel that rumour, or at least tell the House what estimate he has made of the cost of rehousing those disabled people and then carrying out the necessary adaptations in their new homes?

Grant Shapps: Of the changes that we are making in affordable housing and social housing allocations, the most important thing is protecting the most vulnerable people. The whole House will agree that when resources are tight, paying for spare rooms—rather than paying for people to live in the homes that are available—does not make sense. In those changes, however, we will ensure that disabled people are protected in the best possible way.

Tristram Hunt: The last Labour Government oversaw the greatest renaissance of our cities since the Victorian age. Central to that was the densification of development on brownfield sites. Why have the Government junked that policy for more sprawl, the destruction of the countryside and the gutting of our cities?

Greg Clark: Under the previous Government’s target, gardens in cities, which make a huge contribution to the biodiversity and pleasantness of life in cities, were erased. We have got rid of that, and our cities can breathe easily as a result.

Charlie Elphicke: How does the Localism Bill help communities like Dover and Deal?

Greg Clark: Dover and Deal are fortunate indeed to have a representative who is as passionate a localist as my hon. Friend. I know that he is crusading to have the port of Dover retained in the hands of the local community. As Members know, the Localism Bill provides an opportunity for local communities to make a bid for assets of community value—and I dare say this might provide such an opportunity.

Andrew Gwynne: Given the Secretary of State’s well-publicised comments about “Pravda on the rates” and his desire to stop unnecessary council publications, what message does he have for Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council, which continues to publish the “Civic Review”, promoting only Liberal Democrat councillors just weeks before the local elections?

Eric Pickles: I would say to my hon. Friends, “Beware of friendly fire.”

Mark Lancaster: My constituents support the Localism Bill and the empowerment it will bring to local communities,
	particularly in the world of planning, but can the Minister reassure my constituents that the announcements about growth and planning applications in last week’s Budget will not be contradicted?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. I can certainly give that assurance. He will know that in our election manifesto and in the coalition agreement, we said that we would bring in neighbourhood planning and a presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are doing that.

Mary Glindon: Residents of Wideopen in North Tyneside have for a number of years defended a green open space from development. They won one appeal, but the latest planning application has resulted in a public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State commend the residents on their commitment to save the open space and please agree to meet me about this matter?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady will, I am sure, understand that I deal with these matters in a quasi-judicial way, so it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment that might be interpreted as prejudging any appeal.

Karen Lumley: Does the Minister agree that shared services are the way forward in local government? The chief executive of Redditch and Bromsgrove councils, Kevin Dicks, has already managed to save hundreds of thousands of pounds by uniting services between the two councils. Is this not the way to cut costs while improving services?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am pleased to see that local authorities up and down the land—regardless of whether they be county, district or metropolitan—are increasingly looking towards joining together to get better value and protect the front line. I am truly sorry that that enthusiasm is not shared by Opposition Members.

Armed Forces Redundancies

Jim Murphy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on armed forces redundancies.

Andrew Robathan: Today, the Army and the Royal Navy will announce details of their tranche 1 redundancy fields, setting out the specialisations, branches and ranks from which we are seeking volunteers for redundancy. This was a planned, publicised and expected announcement, following that already completed for the Royal Air Force on 1 March this year to deliver the necessary reductions in the size of our armed forces as required by the strategic defence and security review.
	We had wanted to lay a written ministerial statement at 4 o’clock this afternoon—a time chosen by the services to allow sufficient time for them to brief service personnel ahead of their hearing about it from a third party. Indeed, many will have read a story on armed forces redundancy published in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. It was extremely disappointing that any details were leaked and equally appalling that the press would publish a story that will in no way change the difficult decisions we have to make, but adds a further concern to service personnel and their families—a position we have striven to avoid. Indeed, it was to allow all personnel to be briefed that we passed details to the chain of command on Friday.
	As has been made clear in this House on several occasions, we would prefer not to make anyone redundant, but we have to do this to make the very real required savings in defence costs to take control of the deficit. As has been emphasised, this Government will not, for political expediency, shy away from announcing details when they are expected; our armed forces deserve this honesty.
	The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on the current operations in Afghanistan or in Libya, where our armed forces are fighting so bravely on this country’s behalf. This was a key assumption in the strategic defence and security review. We will inform all those individuals selected for redundancy in this, the first of up to four tranches, in September 2011—specifically, 1 September for the Army and RAF and 30 September for the Royal Navy. Those voluntarily leaving the armed forces will do so within six months; non-volunteers will do so within a year. For all those leaving the armed forces as a result of these changes, every effort will be made to assist in what can often be a difficult transition. We will continue to work hard in this area. Our people deserve nothing less.

Jim Murphy: For the third time in just seven weeks, Ministers have had to be summoned to the House of Commons to speak about the treatment of our armed forces. I should have thought that after the sacking of warrant officers by e-mail and the sacking of trainee RAF pilots by media press release, Ministers would be banging on your door, Mr Speaker, demanding the right to come here to make a statement rather than being summoned to appear before the House. Let us hope that this is the last occasion on which Ministers will be dragged here to explain their Department’s
	actions. On previous occasions the Secretary of State has simply shouted some political slogans across the Chamber, and I hope that the change of Minister today signals a change in tone, because armed forces families are expecting a different tone.
	Labour Members are committed to a bipartisan approach to policy on both Afghanistan and Libya. The Secretary of State originally gave a commitment that none of those currently serving in Afghanistan would be sacked on their return, but has since had to admit that he cannot honour that commitment, and that personnel will be sacked after their post-operational leave. Can the Minister confirm that those serving in and around Libya at this very moment will also be liable for compulsory redundancy in September?
	As for the sacking of RAF trainee pilots, the Secretary of State said—quite fairly, I thought—
	“It would make common sense to ensure that those closest to the end of their course could be allowed to continue, if possible.”—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 820.]
	How much common sense has prevailed? How many trainee pilots have been sacked within just 10 hours of earning their RAF wings?
	We all know that no one can stop all redundancies in the Ministry of Defence. However, the first time this was mishandled, Ministers said that it had been an accident. The second time, they said that it had been a mistake. In the opinion of Labour Members, the third time is simply inexcusable. It is time for this shabby treatment of our armed forces to end, and it must end soon.

Andrew Robathan: This is no accident. On 1 March, the Secretary of State said in response to a question from the right hon. Gentleman that there would be an announcement today on redundancies as they were planned. [Interruption.] It was in the House of Commons. As Opposition Front Benchers know full well, it was planned for a written ministerial statement to be issued at 4 pm, and indeed I was going to conduct a briefing for Members of Parliament in all parties to explain the situation. Instead, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), has decided that a Minister should come to the House of Commons. What we are announcing is not new; this is political expediency on the part of the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman was told on 1 March that the written ministerial statement would be issued.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised three points in particular. First, he mentioned redundancies following post-operational leave. Of course those who have served in Afghanistan may have to be considered for redundancy, because 55% of the Army [Interruption]—which, as Opposition Members have spotted, amounts to 11 out of 20—will have served in Afghanistan.
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of people on operations in Libya. We do not yet know what operations will be current in September, when people will receive their redundancy notices. We are considering the matter carefully, and we would certainly not wish to make anyone who is serving on combat operations redundant.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about redundancies of RAF pilots who had only had 10 hours of training to go. I am afraid I cannot comment on that, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman and let him know the answer.

John Redwood: Will the Minister remind the House how many uniformed armed services personnel will need to leave the service over the next two years under the current plans, and will he tell us why this cannot be done by means of natural wastage rather than redundancies?

Andrew Robathan: As far as possible, it is being done by means of natural wastage, and indeed by reducing recruiting, but, as my right hon. Friend will understand, we must continue to recruit because otherwise there will be an imbalance in the armed forces. The number that we are looking at, off the top of my head—in fact I have it here, if my right hon. Friend will wait one second—is 11,000.

Bob Ainsworth: The Minister says these cuts will have no impact on either Afghanistan or Libya, but can he confirm that, despite the leading role we have played in the Libya operation, we are providing only about 8% of the aircraft being used in the no-fly zone and the Chief of the Air Staff has today said that the Royal Air Force is stretched to breaking point? How does the Minister square the following three points: the stretch, the fact that we are providing only 8% of those aircraft, and his insistence that the cuts are having no effect on operations?

Andrew Robathan: I know that the right hon. Gentleman played a very honourable part in the last Government explaining to the then Prime Minister how he was trying to increase operational capacity without increasing spending, and I know that he pointed out to the last Prime Minister that there was not enough money for our operational requirements. On the Royal Air Force in particular, as the Prime Minister said in October, and as the Chief of the Air Staff has confirmed and explicitly stated in his article, we wish to see an uplift in real-terms defence spending from 2015. The Prime Minister has said that.

Andrew Murrison: Will my right hon. Friend outline the extent to which the rules on regular reserve liability will affect those being made redundant, and confirm that those who do have that liability will be kept close, up to date and informed, as they form a very valuable potential contingency in the event of a declining international situation?

Andrew Robathan: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The regular reserve personnel do indeed play a very important role, and I will make sure that they are kept informed.

David Hamilton: May I point out to the Minister that the armed forces do not have any trade union or federation representing them, and it is up to everyone in this House to look after their interests? What is the Minister doing to ensure that, for those who might be affected by these cuts, there are after-care services in place so they have assistance in looking for jobs and families are not moved out their homes? What are we as a Parliament going to do to ensure that we look after the people who protect this country?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have a responsibility to make sure our armed forces personnel and their families are properly looked after, and that is what I do. I should say that in September when individuals are issued with redundancy notices, volunteers for compulsory redundancy—that is the way it is put—will have six months of notice to work, while those who are compulsory non-volunteers will have 12 months of notice to work. They have full resettlement courses, which are extremely valuable, and I should say to both the House and the people outside that the personnel who serve in the armed forces are first rate and almost invariably find that outside employers wish to take them on because of their qualities.

Nadhim Zahawi: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the strategic defence and security review has factored in operations such as the one we are undertaking in Libya, and that we will retain the personnel to be able to respond to such events again?

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because he is absolutely right. The National Security Council came up with various scenarios, including operations such as the one in which we are currently partaking in Libya.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister say how many people in the armed forces will be made compulsorily redundant?

Andrew Robathan: All 11,000 redundancies are termed compulsory. We are hoping that we will receive volunteers for as many posts as possible, but we are not just going to accept volunteers because some of them will be people we wish to keep, so we will not want them to enter the redundancy programme.

James Gray: We all very much regret every single compulsory redundancy under this deficit-driven SDSR, but we none the less accept they have to happen. Does the Minister agree that it is terribly important that those involved are given the most generous possible conditions of redundancy, whether voluntary or compulsory, in keeping, of course, with their normal terms of service?

Andrew Robathan: Yes, I do agree. Individuals will find that the terms of redundancy are generous and attractive, which is why we expect a lot of people to volunteer.

John Woodcock: Will the Minister order an official inquiry into the way that our armed forces personnel continue to learn of their fate through the newspapers, and will that inquiry investigate Ministers themselves?

Andrew Robathan: No.

Dan Byles: For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that the reductions in manpower announced today are not in addition to
	anything announced in the strategic defence and security review? Were all the reductions planned, and had the Minister always planned on coming to the House today to announce them?

Andrew Robathan: Indeed, we announced to the House on 1 March that the redundancy programme would be announced on 4 April. That is exactly what was planned in the SDSR and there is nothing in addition. I am sorry that some people have wished to make political capital of the matter.

Paul Flynn: Why do two out of three items of vital equipment fail to reach our combat troops on time?

Andrew Robathan: I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time and know that he takes a particular interest in these issues, but I do not think his facts are correct on this occasion. There were issues in the past but—and here I will be rather consensual—equipment procurement got a lot better during the final years of the previous Administration. Equipment procurement is now much better, particularly in operational areas.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for his doughty response. We will now return to the subject of redundancies.

Jason McCartney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no doubt about the ability of our armed forces to fulfil the tasks given to them, but I have some worries about morale. Will the Minister join me in appealing to the media to take a responsible attitude to the way they report these facts, and to have respect for the chain of command?

Andrew Robathan: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend because, like him, I have served in the armed forces and I find the political posturing and use of the
	media in these cases deeply regrettable. All that does is create an atmosphere in which people are uncertain and concerned about their futures.

Ian Lucas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the UK manufacturing industry’s profound disquiet at the continued reduction in the capacity of the armed forces? Has he discussed such matters with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, or only with the Treasury?

Andrew Robathan: UK defence manufacturing is not my responsibility and I have not discussed it with the Secretary of State.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister confirm that the redundancies apply only to regular and not reserve forces?

Andrew Robathan: I am confident that the review into reserve forces, “Future Reserves 2020”, will lead to a more robust reserve forces scenario and I look forward to reading it shortly.

Chris Bryant: In his initial comments, the Minister deplored the fact that these details had been leaked to the media, yet he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that he would not hold an investigation into the matter, and that he would not be looking into Ministers’ offices. That is despite the fact that there have been regular briefings that clearly cannot have come from anywhere other than the Ministers’ offices. He cannot have it both ways; he must stop briefing and ensure that newspapers do not get these stories unfairly.

Andrew Robathan: I find it a strange accusation that I have been briefing the media on redundancies in the armed forces. It is not a pleasant subject and has not given the Government tremendously good publicity—I think we can agree about that. On past occasions, the Secretary of State has indeed instituted investigations into leaks, but I assure the House that this leak did not come from Ministers.

Africa and the Middle East

William Hague: Mr Speaker, with permission, I will update the House on recent developments in Africa and the middle east. Before I do, I know that hon. Members on both sides will wish to join me in expressing sadness and outrage at the killing of seven international UN workers in Afghanistan this weekend. They put themselves in harm’s way to support a better life for the Afghan people. I pay tribute to those who died and call for their killers to be brought to justice.
	The House will also share our concern about the heavy loss of life in Côte d’Ivoire. The UN has confirmed at least 462 deaths and up to 1 million people have been displaced. I discussed the situation this morning with Jean Ping, who chairs the African Union Commission. The African Union has led mediation efforts. We are also in close contact with the rightful President, Mr Ouattara. The Security Council will meet tomorrow to discuss its response. We call for an end to the violence, for defeated former President Gbagbo to step down, for all human rights abuses to be investigated and for the International Criminal Court to investigate the crimes that appear to have taken place.
	We also remain in close contact with the small British community in Côte d’Ivoire. Since December, our advice to British nationals has been to leave the country. France is leading on plans to evacuate nationals of EU nations if it becomes necessary. We have sent a rapid deployment team to Paris, ready to be part of any evacuation, and consular officers in the region are on standby.
	Britain continues to play its part in the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973 to protect civilians in Libya, and 34 nations are now providing a range of assistance. NATO has assumed full operating capability over all military operations, and since Thursday, a total of 701 sorties and 276 strike sorties have been conducted. The coalition has all but eliminated the regime’s air defence capability and stopped it bombarding Libyan cities from the air. We are destroying key regime military assets, including main battle tanks and mobile artillery. The arms embargo is being enforced. We have prevented a huge loss of life and a humanitarian catastrophe.
	However, the regime is still able to inflict considerable damage on Libya’s civilian population using ground forces, and indeed is deliberately inflicting such harm, particularly in the towns of Brega, Misrata and Zintan, where the heaviest fighting is taking place. So long as the regime continues to attack areas of civilian population, the coalition will continue military action to implement the UN Security Council resolution. We take every precaution to minimise the risk of causing civilian death and are seeking verification of incidents where this nevertheless may have happened.
	We are one of more than 30 nations contributing to the humanitarian effort in Libya. Food distribution is taking place at six locations in opposition-held areas in the east of the country. The World Food Programme has more than 10,000 tonnes of food positioned inside Libya and neighbouring countries, and hopes to reach 85,000 people. The Department for International
	Development is flying tents for more than 10,000 displaced people from its stocks in Dubai to be distributed by the Red Crescent. Several consignments of medical supplies have been successfully delivered to Misrata and, yesterday, a Turkish hospital ship was able to evacuate 230 wounded people.
	A further British diplomatic mission has travelled to Benghazi, led by Christopher Prentice. As I explained to the House last week, we are not engaged in arming the opposition forces. We are prepared to supply non-lethal equipment that will help with the protection of civilian lives and the delivery of humanitarian aid. Given the urgent need of the interim transitional national council for telecommunications equipment, the National Security Council has decided this morning to supply it with such equipment.
	On Wednesday, Libya’s Foreign Minister, Musa Kusa, joined other prominent Libyan figures who have resigned their positions. He flew to the UK from Tunisia of his own volition, having notified our authorities shortly before his departure of his intention to travel here. In accordance with the EU travel ban, he was refused formal leave to enter the UK but was granted temporary admission and met by officials. Musa Kusa is not being offered any immunity from British or international justice. He is not detained by us and has taken part in discussions with officials, since his arrival, of his own free will. Today, my officials are meeting representatives of the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police to discuss their request to interview him in connection with the Lockerbie bombing. We will encourage Musa Kusa to co-operate fully with all requests for interviews with law enforcement and investigation authorities, in relation to Lockerbie as well as other issues stemming from Libya’s past sponsorship of terrorism, and to seek legal representation where appropriate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, these investigations are entirely independent of Government; they should follow the evidence wherever it leads them, and the Government will assist them in any way possible.
	Musa Kusa’s departure weakens the regime and exposes its utter lack of legitimacy, even in the eyes of those most closely associated with it in the past. It confirms that there is no future for Libya with Gaddafi in power. It is right that, in these circumstances, when the Foreign Minister of a regime that is committing atrocities against its own people wishes to leave that country and to take no part in what is happening, we should assist in that process. We will treat those abandoning the Gaddafi regime in the following way. Any who travel to the UK to speak to us will be treated with respect and in accordance with our laws. Any immigration issues will be considered on their merits as with any other case. If our law enforcement authorities wish to speak to them about crimes committed by the regime, Her Majesty’s Government will in no way prevent them from doing so.
	In the case of anyone currently sanctioned by the EU and UN who breaks definitively with the regime, we will discuss with our partners the merits of removing the restrictions that apply to them while being clear that that does not constitute any form of immunity whatsoever. We will begin such discussions at the EU this week in the case of Musa Kusa. Sanctions are designed to change behaviour and it is therefore right that they are adjusted when new circumstances arise. We continue to offer our full support to the investigations of the International Criminal Court.
	The Libyan regime is under pressure. What is required from it is clear: a genuine ceasefire as set out by President Obama and others including our Prime Minister last month, an end to all attacks against civilians, the withdrawal of armed forces from contested cities and full access for humanitarian assistance. When those requirements of the UN are fulfilled, air strikes to protect civilians can stop. The world is united in believing that the Gaddafi regime has lost all legitimacy and that he must go, allowing the Libyan people to determine their own future.
	We continue to pursue tough sanctions at the EU. Additional sanctions on five Libyan companies and two individuals are being discussed at the EU today and if agreed will be in place on 12 April. We also continue to pursue additional sanctions with our international partners at the UN and we hope to achieve agreement soon. The first meeting of the contact group on Libya that was agreed at the London conference last week will take place next week in Doha, and I will attend. It will take forward the work agreed at the London conference, maintain international unity and bring together a wide range of nations in support of a better future for Libya.
	Elsewhere in the region, we remain very concerned about the political situation in Bahrain. It is vital for the future stability of the country that the Government and leaders from all communities work together to reduce sectarian tension and to create the conditions in which a national dialogue can lead to real political reform. In Yemen, attempts at agreeing a political transition have repeatedly stalled or failed. There is an urgent need for steps to meet the legitimate demands of the Yemeni people and we call on President Saleh to engage with the opposition and with the protesters in a way that meets these aspirations and avoids violence.
	We are deeply concerned by further deaths and violence in Syria. We call on the Syrian Government to respect the rights to free speech and peaceful protest. We call for restraint from the Syrian security forces and for the Syrian authorities to investigate the deaths of protestors and bring those responsible to account through a fair and transparent process. We note the announcement of certain reforms and believe that meaningful reforms that address the legitimate demands of the Syrian people are necessary and right.
	The United Kingdom believes that the people of all these countries must be able to determine their own futures and that the international community must be bold and ambitious in supporting those countries that are on the path to greater political and economic freedom. That is why across the region we stand for reform not repression, and why in Libya, supported by the full authority of the United Nations, we are acting to save many lives threatened by one of the most repressive regimes of them all.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for allowing me advance sight of it this afternoon. May I also join him in expressing revulsion on behalf of the Opposition at the murders of the seven UN workers in Afghanistan this weekend? He is right—and speaks for the whole House in this—generously to commend their work and unequivocally to condemn their killers.
	May I also associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the gravely worrying situation in Côte d’Ivoire? I welcome news that he has held discussions this morning with the chair of the African Union Commission, Jean Ping, and that contingency plans are in place for any evacuation deemed necessary. I join the Foreign Secretary in stating clearly and categorically that Laurent Gbagbo must step down immediately. If he does not stand down, there is clearly a risk of a repeat of the situation we had in Angola in 1992 when a disputed election led to a protracted civil war. Given that risk, will the Foreign Secretary share with the House his assessment, in the light of those conversations with the African Union, of Nigeria’s willingness to contemplate supporting any west African-led intervention force in Côte d’Ivoire? Given the prior opposition to such a move by Ghana and Gambia, what assessment has he made of the possibility that the Economic Community of West African States might be able to agree to an intervention force in the event of the conflict continuing in the days, weeks and months ahead? What assessment has he made of the number of Governments in the African Union that still support Mr Gbagbo?
	On Syria, on Friday thousands of Syrians took to the streets of Douma after prayers and were reported by the BBC to have been chanting, “We want freedom.” Yesterday it was reported that again thousands of people had taken to the streets there, this time to bury at least eight people who died during Friday’s protests. The legitimate demands of these protestors should be met, as the Foreign Secretary said, by reform and not by repression. What assessment has he made of the likely impact on the reform process of the appointment of the new Prime Minister, Adel Safar?
	Let me associate myself and the Opposition with the position set out by the Foreign Secretary on both Yemen and Bahrain.
	The situation in Libya has, of course, dominated debate within and beyond the House in recent weeks. The Foreign Secretary at the weekend was optimistic that we have not yet reached a stage of stalemate, but beyond protecting civilians from the air, UN resolution 1973 provided a range of diplomatic powers intended to deepen the isolation and increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime. These included an expansion of asset freezes, enforcing the arms embargo and measures to prevent mercenaries from flying into Libya. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update specifically on the implementation of these non-military diplomatic aspects of resolution 1973?
	I welcome the fact that Christopher Prentice’s team is in Benghazi assessing the situation and entering into dialogue with the interim national council. The Foreign Secretary has just told the House that “we are not engaged in arming the opposition forces. We are prepared to supply non-lethal equipment that will help with the protection of civilian lives and the delivery of humanitarian aid.” He went on to say that he had decided this morning with his colleagues on the National Security Council to supply the transitional national council with telecommunications equipment. Will he therefore inform the House whether opposition military forces have been in receipt of any support from British military personnel in maintaining or upgrading the military equipment that they already possess?
	Turning to the case of Musa Kusa, his defection should be taken as a welcome sign of the disillusionment and disunity within the Gaddafi regime. Following that defection, can the Foreign Secretary give us his latest assessment of the situation within the Gaddafi regime? In particular, how seriously should the House treat the discussions between Musa Kusa’s successor and the Greek Foreign Minister in trying to find a way of resolving the conflict? Clearly, our first priority has to be the urgent operational need to ascertain information from Musa Kusa with respect to the present conflict in Libya. UN Security Council resolution 1973 must be enforced, and if he can help in any way to bring that about, all sides of the House must surely welcome it.
	However, many in the House will want to know that Musa Kusa is not and should not be above British or international law. Last week I supported calls saying that the appropriate authorities including, of course, the police should in time be able to ask him all the necessary questions about Libya’s violent history, not least here on British soil. The murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland on Saturday, on which Ministers are due to give a statement later today, will no doubt remind the House of the links between the Libyan regime in the past and decades of terrorism on British soil.
	I welcome the news, therefore, that the Scottish Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway constabulary are now in discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how to pursue their investigations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether any other authorities in the United Kingdom or in other countries at the international level have been in contact with the Foreign Office over the arrival of Musa Kusa as part of their investigations into Libyan terrorism or crimes against humanity perpetrated in Libya?
	In conclusion, both sides of the House supported the decision to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. The members of our armed forces, of course, have the continuing support of the House, and the Government have our continued support in using diplomatic means to maintain pressure on, and deepen the isolation of, the Gaddafi regime.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what continues to be strong bipartisan support for the operations that are taking place in Libya. He mentioned his revulsion at the events in Afghanistan—the murders of the UN workers. That will be felt across the House and the whole international community.
	On Côte d’Ivoire, the right hon. Gentleman asked how many African Union nations there are now that do not believe Mr Gbagbo should stand down. I think the number is down to zero. The whole of the African Union is clear about that. The African Union did try to mediate a solution. It is Mr Gbagbo’s persistence in trying to sit where he is, having clearly lost the election and despite the views of his own countrymen and the efforts of the African Union, that has precipitated the violence we now see.
	It is not the belief of west African countries that they will need to provide an intervention force of the kind the right hon. Gentleman describes, but that will be discussed at the UN Security Council tomorrow, as I mentioned in my statement. We will strongly support greater action by the UN and French forces that are in
	Côte d'Ivoire to help ensure civilian protection in Abidjan and elsewhere. We will also discuss the international response to the mounting civilian casualty list and reports of atrocities in the country. We will urge the swift investigation by the UN-mandated commission of inquiry into reports of horrific human rights abuses in Côte d'Ivoire, which are not necessarily all on one side. All abuses must be investigated. However, I do not think that Nigeria and other west African countries are contemplating an intervention force on top of the fighting that is happening there now.
	In Syria, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a new Prime Minister has been appointed. As in all these cases, we will have to judge by actions, rather than words. The Syrian President has committed himself to certain reforms, but it is clear that many in Syria would like those to be much more far reaching. We in the United Kingdom recommend reforms that meet the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. I think that the new Prime Minister, and indeed the President, will be judged by that.
	On Libya, the overall implementation of the sanctions set out in UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 is particularly good by the standards of these things because there is very strong international agreement on them. The vast majority of nations in the world are fully behind the sanctions. That has led to freezes on tens of billions of dollars of the regime’s assets. The conflict has led to oil not being lifted from Libya, so the principal income of the regime has also been very seriously affected. The right hon. Gentleman asked about opposition forces and whether British forces had been involved in any way in upgrading, improving or maintaining the equipment. I am not aware of any such efforts, so the answer to that question is no.
	I discussed with the Greek Foreign Minister this morning the efforts and discussions that took place late last night in Athens between the Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya and the Greek leaders. The Libyans again put forward, as they have in various discussions over the past three weeks, their intention to have a ceasefire, but of course the Gaddafi regime has three times announced a ceasefire and yet continued its attacks, particularly the attacks on the people of Misrata, who have been placed in a desperate situation. I believe that my colleague, the Greek Foreign Minister, conveyed the message that we would want him to convey, which is that a ceasefire will be judged by actions, not words, and that we wish to see the Gaddafi regime observing the requirements that the international community has placed on it. I think that these attempts to have discussions with other countries are a sign of the pressure that the regime is under, but the solution is in their hands to adopt a genuine ceasefire and then, in the interests of their country, make it clear that Colonel Gaddafi will go.
	I hope that my statement answered satisfactorily all the questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised about Musa Kusa. Musa Kusa has come to a society that is based on law, and the way in which we treat people who come to this country will be based on law. They will not be given immunity from prosecution from British or international authorities. Equally, we cannot put them under a restraint that is not justified by evidence against them. If they are not under arrest, they are of course free to move around. Our response in every way will be based on law, just as our international
	response, our implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, is based on international law. We stick to the implementation of that resolution—nothing more and nothing less—in the military action we are undertaking, and that gives us our strong moral, legal and diplomatic position.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is understandably much interest in this statement, but there are three more statements to follow and, therefore, heavy pressures on time, so brevity, as usual, is vital.

Richard Ottaway: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Does he agree that removing Colonel Gaddafi must be the focus of our attention? There are many around him still propping up his regime, however, so can he confirm that there is no viable future for those still loyal to Colonel Gaddafi as long as they continue to keep him in power?

William Hague: Yes, there is no viable future for the country as long as Colonel Gaddafi is in power, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that Gaddafi should go. Virtually the whole world thinks that Gaddafi should go, although let me be clear that our military objectives and activities will be strictly in accordance with the United Nations resolution—let no one be in any doubt about that. But, of course, what is required for any viable future for Libya is for Gaddafi to leave, and of course we recommend to other figures in his regime that it would be right to follow the example of Musa Kusa and desert a regime that has done such violence and damage to the Libyan people.

David Winnick: However much we despise Gaddafi and everything that he represents, does the Foreign Secretary understand that there is no wish for Britain to become actively involved in a civil war, and that resolution 1973 should not be interpreted in any way as Britain being involved in any way whatever in what is, after all, a civil war, although we know which side we would like to see win?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is getting involved there and taking sides, but I hesitate to call it a civil war. It is an uprising by people who started with peaceful demonstrations against a despotic regime that then waged war, using heavy equipment, artillery and air power, against them, even at the stage when all they were trying to do was to demonstrate and to ask for the rights that we take for granted in so many other parts of the world. I hesitate to call that a civil war; it is a Government waging war on their own people. Nevertheless, I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he looks for: we will implement the UN Security Council resolution, and that is what we are there to do. If it had not been for that resolution and the legal authority that it provides, we would not be engaged in what we are doing in Libya. We rest on that resolution, but we will continue to implement it.

Menzies Campbell: In view of the emerging possibility of further prosecutions in relation to the Lockerbie bombing, does my right
	hon. Friend agree that any such prosecutions should be conducted through the regular court system in Scotland, and that we should avoid the previous incongruity of having to establish a special court at Camp Zeist in Holland, as happened in the case of Mr Megrahi and his co-accused?

William Hague: I had better leave any legal deliberations to those better qualified in the Government. Certainly, whatever appropriate method is necessary should be followed in any future prosecutions. I understand that at the moment there is insufficient evidence to produce further prosecutions, but that may change, so I will let my right hon. and learned Friend raise the matter with the Law Officers, rather than try to give a definite ruling on it.

Denis MacShane: May I welcome the work of the Foreign Office and its agents in bringing Musa Kusa to the United Kingdom, even if he brings with him a lot of legal, diplomatic and ethical problems? If he was responsible for giving Semtex to the IRA in the 1970s and ’80s, the people who used it to kill and main British citizens are now all out of prison and, in some cases, our partners in devolved Administrations. If people want to quit their regimes, whether in Zimbabwe, Burma or anywhere, and come to the UK, saying that they should go straight to clink and straight away face prosecution is not going to encourage them to defect.

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly. We are not putting anybody straight into clink. Musa Kusa is not detained; he is not under arrest. As I say, this is a society based on law, and if he is not under arrest, he is free to do as he wishes. Equally, as a society based on law, we do not give immunity from prosecution by the British authorities or international authorities.

Denis MacShane: indicated  assent .

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman nods his head, so I think we have his approval.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while of course we must observe the rule of law in this country, it may nevertheless, from time to time, reach a point where it is in the wider interest, if it is going to mean saving a lot of lives, to do deals with people whom we may find deeply unattractive, and that there are a number of precedents for exactly that?

William Hague: There are precedents for doing deals with people one has previously found unattractive—there is no doubt about that—in all walks of life and all stages of public life. Nevertheless, while I take my hon. Friend’s point, that has not arisen in this case. In the case of Musa Kusa, there is no deal. Any press reports of a deal—of sanctuary or asylum in return for information—are wrong. That is not how we are conducting this. It is being conducted in a much more straightforward way, and that has not arisen so far.

Dennis Skinner: In the second world war, Rudolf Hess landed in this country and was locked up. Why is it that this Musa Kusa wanders into
	Britain, is treated in the way that he is, and it is not yet even thought to hand him over to the Scottish authorities? Never mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) said: just think of the revulsion out there in the country about this man being treated like he is.

William Hague: As I say, our response to this and other situations will be entirely based on the law of our land. If the hon. Gentleman can find any way in which we are treating Musa Kusa, or anybody else who has come from Libya, without respect to the laws of our country and without full co-operation with policing authorities or judicial prosecuting authorities, then he must tell me about it. In no way are we treating him in any way differently from accordance with our laws.

Mary Macleod: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that matters in the Ivory Coast will be dealt with with some urgency because of the current heavy loss of life that has already taken place?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. We have treated this with urgency all along. It was back in December that we called for Gbagbo to go. We have delivered a great deal of humanitarian assistance, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has put in place, not only for Côte d’Ivoire but for Liberia, since this has created a very difficult humanitarian situation in Liberia as well. All the time we have tried to respond to events and put in place the help that is necessary, and we will add to that urgency at the UN Security Council tomorrow.

Keith Vaz: The Foreign Secretary will know that over the past two days 1,600 people have been injured in Taiz and Al Hudaydah in Yemen. Although of course we appreciate the efforts that he has made on the diplomatic front to bring sides together, is not now the time for an envoy to be sent from the United Nations or the European Union to bring the President and people around a table so that a smooth transition can be exercised?

William Hague: A great many diplomatic efforts have been made. The right hon. Gentleman mentions my own efforts. I met the President and the opposition parties two months ago to encourage them in the right direction—evidently without success in this case—and other Foreign Ministers from around the world have tried to do the same. In recent days, the Gulf Co-operation Council countries, in particular, have been involved in trying to mediate over Yemen, and Saudi Arabia has often tried to do so. Many efforts have been made. The list of envoys who have tried to assist in bringing people together in Yemen is growing quite long. That in no way excludes further efforts, so of course we will continue to do everything we can to try to ensure that reason prevails and that the way to an orderly transition is found in Yemen that does not involve an even greater scale of injury and loss of life, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. We will continue these efforts and in no way dismiss the idea of a further international envoy.

Edward Leigh: When Musa Kusa was ambassador here, we had to expel him for openly calling for the murder of dissidents. We are
	now supping, if not with the devil, with a pretty good substitute. Is not our enthusiasm for regime change sucking us away from the high moral ground of humanitarian gestures and into the ever more murky world of Libyan politics?

William Hague: No, I think that the high moral ground is retained by basing all our actions on what is legally correct, as we have done in our handling of the whole Libya crisis from the United Nations resolution downwards, and in the handling of these individual cases. When somebody with such a long association with the regime wants to leave it, and by doing so damage the regime, I think that it is right to assist them in doing so. Additionally, it can only be a good thing to discuss with such a man the situation in Libya and the middle east, and gain his insight into it. It can also only be a good thing that any prosecuting authorities that wish to speak to him and get more information from him can do so. I see no downside in doing what we have done with him over the past few days.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that among the restrictions that he proposes to remove is the freezing of Musa Kusa’s assets? That will mean that a man who has engaged in the most despicable acts, both abroad and in the exploitation of his own people, and who has built up his assets on that basis, will be able to enjoy the fruits of those acts.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of assumptions in his question. I will not necessarily take issue with those assumptions. However, where we have placed asset freezes and travel bans on individuals purely because they are members of a regime, as is the case with the European Union asset freezes and travel bans—we are not talking here about United Nations Security Council travel bans—when an individual ceases to be a member of that regime, it follows that a change in those restrictions should be discussed; otherwise there would be no incentive whatever for members of the regime to abandon its murderous work. When the situation changes and the reasons the restrictions have been placed on an individual change, of course the restrictions should change as well.

John Baron: When we first intervened in Libya, the length of our commitment was talked of in briefings in terms of weeks; now it is months. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if there is a stalemate on the ground without a ceasefire, we could be talking years?

William Hague: I am not sure that I have ever referred to days, weeks, months or years, and I am not going to start doing so now. I think that to do so is futile. We will implement the United Nations resolution. We should not be put off implementing that resolution if it takes time, just as we might have been very pleased if it had not taken many days at all. I do not think that we should say of something of the gravity of the protection of the civilian population of Libya, with all the consequences that flow for north Africa and the wider middle east, that we will do it for only a week or for 10 days. It is important to carry through the authority of the United Nations, and we are not putting a time limit on that.

Andy Slaughter: On Friday, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that the Foreign Secretary, with French and German support, intends to propose the recognition of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital, at the next Quartet meeting in two weeks. Is that true? If so, I commend that positive step, but ask him not to get sucked into the issue of land swaps and to maintain the right of return for refugees.

William Hague: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on something that he was going to commend me for, but no, we are not proposing the recognition of a Palestinian state. We have recently upgraded the Palestinian delegation in the UK to a mission. What the UK, France and Germany are putting to the Quartet is that the basis of negotiations set out by the Quartet, including the United States, should include 1967 borders, with land swaps, a just settlement for refugees and Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states. We are advocating that as an established basis for negotiations, but we are not advocating proceeding unilaterally with the recognition of a Palestinian state.

Mark Lancaster: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the planning for the post-conflict reconstruction and stabilisation of Libya, and on whether he believes the scope of the existing UN resolution, for example in relation to our inability to deploy the military stabilisation and support group, means that it can be practically implemented to achieve what we want to achieve there?

William Hague: This is a vital subject that we discussed in part of the London conference last week. It will be an important part of the discussion at the first meeting of the contact group, which, as I explained in my statement, will take place in Doha next week. The United Nations Secretary-General made it very clear at the London conference that the UN was prepared to take the lead in co-ordinating the stabilisation and humanitarian work, which was an extremely welcome commitment. The next stage, on top of the urgent work supported by our Department for International Development that I mentioned earlier, is to conduct more detailed consideration of Libya’s future stabilisation needs at the Doha meeting.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Foreign Secretary for an advance copy of his statement.
	Of the 34 countries currently involved, how many are Arab states, and how many of that number are involved in front-line activities?

William Hague: The number of Arab states involved in military participation is two, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. They have both supplied fighter aircraft to support the no-fly zone. Of course, other states are involved in humanitarian assistance, and the 34 also include states that have given over-flight rights to assist in the implementation of the UN resolution. That would be a minority of the 34, but I do not have the numbers to hand for each different category of Arab support.
	We should be clear that the Arab League continues to support the implementation of the resolution robustly. It attended our meeting at the London conference, and we will expect to see it in Doha as well. There were five
	or six Arab nations represented at the London conference, and I hope that more than that will join the contact group. The support of Arab nations for what we are doing has been maintained from the beginning, and it continues.

Martin Horwood: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we owe it to the United Nations to continue to press the Afghan Government to bring the Mazar-e-Sharif killers to justice? However, will he also condemn the burning of the Koran by American extremists, which does not excuse, but clearly inflamed, the violence?

William Hague: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I absolutely condemn the burning of the Koran in that or any other instance. It is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful. As he said, that does not excuse what then happened in Afghanistan, but we should be very clear that we condemn both.

Paul Flynn: Does not the failure of the armed Afghan police to stop the lynchings of the United Nations workers, along with the previous retreat by 300 members of the Afghan army when they were attacked by seven members of the Taliban, cause the right hon. Gentleman to reassess his very optimistic belief that the security of Afghanistan can be left in the hands of the police and the army when our troops retire?

William Hague: I do not think we have ever suggested that the Afghan national security forces are able to look after every security situation in Afghanistan on their own—clearly they are not. If they were already able to do that, we would not need to be in Afghanistan. We want to get them in a position in which they can do that from 2014 onwards.
	Since the hon. Gentleman points to some of the deficiencies of the Afghan national security forces, it is important also to point out that many of them are doing excellent work, partnered with our troops in Helmand, and that a huge proportion of the military operations around Kandahar over the past year have been undertaken by the Afghan forces themselves. We must not give an unrepresentative account of the capabilities of those forces.

Laura Sandys: I know that the Foreign Secretary is well aware of the tribal differences in Libya and the historical divide between east and west. To what extent is Gaddafi exploiting our geographical capture in the east to create and perpetuate that sense of divide? What can we do in the west of Libya to ensure that people there see and understand that our humanitarian activity is for all Libyans, not just certain tribes?

William Hague: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The strength and determination of the attacks that the regime has mounted on, for example, Misrata, illustrate their determination to try to secure by military force areas in the west of Libya so that if they cannot reconquer the whole country, they can declare an east-west divide, playing on history and trying to return to those days. As well as the humanitarian reasons, that is why it is important for us to support the people of Misrata and try to defend them from attack. The vast majority
	of Libyans with whom I have discussed these affairs, in the opposition and in the regime, strongly support Libya’s territorial integrity and want a united future for their country. They do not agree with any Gaddafi intention to partition it, or to hang on in part of the country.

Mark Durkan: The Foreign Secretary referred to his discussions this morning with Jean Ping about the terrible situation in Côte d’Ivoire. Was he also able to discuss Libya with him? Has he got any clearer understanding of African Union perspectives on that? Was he able to give or take any encouragement about possible African Union influences that might be used, in keeping with what was envisaged in UN resolution 1973?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, we discussed Côte d’Ivoire, but also Libya at great length. Mr Ping was clear that the African Union also felt that Gaddafi should go—the vast majority of African Union leaders have no disagreement with us about that. Some African nations might disagree, but the vast majority of the African Union believe that it is inevitable and right. I have encouraged Mr Ping to engage more closely with our work in the contact group. Indeed, I have invited the African Union to the contact group meeting in Doha at the end of next week. It will have to decide at its meeting in Mauritania this weekend whether to attend the Doha meeting, but I see no obstacle to the African Union’s joining in a meeting, where the United Nations is present. I think that we have established this morning a closer working relationship on those matters.

Andrew Murrison: In 2003, in planning for the reconstruction of Iraq, the UK Government gave too much weight to the opinions and insights of Iraqi ex-pats, émigrés and defectors. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we do not make the same mistake, as the rats leave what we hope is Gaddafi’s sinking ship?

William Hague: Yes, I think my hon. Friend makes an absolutely fair point. All those people have important insights and opinions, but we must remember that there are many people left, for example, those who want to leave the regime but cannot or dare not. Some people are lying low and others have been in office in the past and not been seen around in recent years. All their opinions will be important, too. We fully take the lesson to which my hon. Friend refers.

Chris Bryant: The Foreign Secretary said that Britain would now give the rebels telecommunications equipment. That could cover a wide variety of things, from some mobile phones, through the Bowman system to a missile guidance system. What exactly does he mean by telecommunications equipment?

William Hague: I do not mean missile guidance systems; I mean telecommunications equipment. I do not want to go into details about the exact specification for various reasons, including that, if I did so, it would be easier for the regime to interfere with the telephones. However, it is telecommunications equipment, which enables people to say where there is desperate humanitarian need and
	when a town is under attack, and to speak to us in the outside world. I spent a good deal of yesterday afternoon trying to speak to one of the Libyan opposition leaders in Benghazi, but we were never able to establish a telephone connection. It will improve our understanding of what is going on there. It is purely about communications.

Peter Bone: The Foreign Secretary should be congratulated on his statement, and the coalition Government should be congratulated on their regular updates to the House. Is the former Foreign Minister of Libya free to leave this country if he wants to?

William Hague: He is not detained or under arrest, so as things stand, he is free to go where he wishes. I am not aware of him trying to leave the country, but he is not in detention. We will treat him in accordance with the law—I strongly reinforce that point. Only if the law prevents him from doing something that he wishes to do would we intervene to stop him departing.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement to the House. On the arrival from Misrata of the hospital ship with some 1,000-plus injured people on board who were hurt as a result of the terrorist campaign, will he tell us what steps he will take to ensure that the Gaddafi regime and his soldiers are prevented from carrying out their clinically murderous campaign against innocent civilians? What steps will he take to ensure that Misrata is not overrun, and that the voice of freedom is maintained?

William Hague: We have other plans to get further assistance into Misrata, although of course, I cannot be specific about them in advance—we do not want to give notice of our plans to the Gaddafi regime. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a good deal of our military effort has been designed to protect the people of Misrata. Many of the strikes against battle tanks and mobile artillery units of the Libyan armed forces have been made in the vicinity of Misrata. That is difficult because some of those forces are in built-up areas, and our concern to avoid civilian casualties overrides our desire to attack individual units in such areas. However, a great deal of the NATO effort is now going into trying to relieve the pressure on the most unfortunate citizens of Misrata.

Mike Hancock: While I can accept that Musa Kusa’s circumstances have changed, the one thing that has not changed is his antecedence—he gave weapons to the IRA and was alleged to be involved in the Lockerbie plot. If we do not have enough evidence to detain him and bring charges against him, what on earth have our intelligence services been doing for the last 20 years?

William Hague: As I have said, any action must be based on evidence. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that things have been alleged, but the evidence must be presented. The authorities can proceed only on the basis of such evidence.

Robert Halfon: Under the cover of what else is going on in the middle east, the Iranian regime recently increased the sentences of seven Ba’hai
	leaders to 20 years. Will my right hon. Friend make strong representations to the Iranian Government to stop the persecution of the Iranian Ba’hais?

William Hague: Yes, most certainly—my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that. The Iranian Government now have one of the worst human rights records in the world. They have four times as many journalists in detention as any other country; they have carried out per capita more executions than any other country so far this year; they have imprisoned the two principal opposition leaders; and they have added to all that the outrage to which my hon. Friend refers, and we unreservedly condemn it.

Christopher Pincher: The Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary both acknowledged that the Gaddafi regime is at least partly propped up by murderous mercenaries who are terrorising the civilian population. Will my right hon. Friend therefore indicate what steps the Foreign Office, NATO and our allies are taking to stop the entry into Libya of mercenaries from Chad and Niger?

William Hague: Yes, that is one of the things attended to in the UN Security Council resolutions, which call for action against mercenaries entering the country. My hon. Friend is quite right that there is a good deal of evidence that Colonel Gaddafi has bought some of the military support that he has employed over the last few weeks. Although I cannot go into any operational details, we will take action whenever we can, and whenever we have the necessary information, against the supply of mercenaries to Libya. We have been in touch with neighbouring countries about that. People entering Libya in order to do violence to the civilian population of Libya do so at their peril.

Duncan Hames: I heard what the Foreign Secretary said to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on asset freezing, but in a statement last week he painted quite a rosy picture to the House about the benefit to the Libyan people of a future Libyan Government spending those assets. Can he reassure us that any loosening of sanctions in response to those deserting the Gaddafi regime will not allow those people to take with them riches gained as a result of their long association with Gaddafi which belong to the Libyan people?

William Hague: Basically, yes, any changes in sanctions on people who have defected from the regime are likely, in terms of the quantity of money involved, to be infinitesimal compared with the assets of the regime and its companies. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. The United States has frozen more than $30 billion-worth of assets, so we are talking about something very tiny when compared with the total scale of assets.

Dan Byles: The House has rightly praised our armed forces for the visible work they are doing, but will the Secretary of State commend the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, particularly the rapid deployment teams, for their sterling work throughout the region in recent times, which is perhaps less visible?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Rapid deployment teams in a variety of very difficult situations, including chaotic airports and the aftermath of earthquakes in recent weeks, have done an absolutely outstanding job for this country. The diplomatic mission in Benghazi, to whom I have referred, have, in sometimes difficult and dangerous circumstances, gone into eastern Libya, so he is quite right to praise our diplomats and I will take that praise back to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

NHS Reform

Andrew Lansley: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about NHS modernisation. Modernisation of the national health service is necessary, is in patients’ interests and is the right thing to do to secure the NHS for future generations. The Health and Social Care Bill is one part of a broader vision of health and health services in this country being among the best in the world; world-leading measurement of the results we achieve for patients; patients always experiencing “No decision about me without me”; a service where national standards and funding secure a high-quality, comprehensive service available to all, based on need and not the ability to pay; and where the power to deliver is in the hands of local doctors, nurses, health professionals and local communities.
	The House will know that the Bill completed its Committee stage last Thursday. I was also able to announce last week that a further 43 GP-led commissioning consortia had successfully applied to be pathfinder commissioning groups. We now have a total of 220 groups representing 87% of the country; that is 45 million patients whose GP surgeries are committed to showing how they can further improve services for their patients. In addition, 90% of relevant local authorities have come forward to be early implementers of health and well-being boards, bringing democratic leadership to health, public health and social care at local level.
	That progress is very encouraging. Our desire is to move forward with the support of doctors, nurses and others who work in the NHS and make a difference to the lives of so many of us, day in and day out. However, we recognise that the speed of progress has brought with it some substantive concerns, expressed in various quarters. Some of those concerns are misplaced or based on misrepresentations, but we recognise that some of them are genuine. We want to continue to listen to, engage with and learn from experts, patients and front-line staff within the NHS and beyond and to respond accordingly. I can therefore tell the House that we propose to take the opportunity of a natural break in the passage of the Bill to pause, listen and engage with all those who want the NHS to succeed, and subsequently to bring forward amendments to improve the plans further in the normal way. We have, of course, listened and improved the plans already. We strengthened the overview and scrutiny process of local authorities in response to consultation, and we made amendments in Committee to make it absolutely clear that competition will be on the basis of quality, not price. Patients will choose and GPs will refer on the basis of comparisons of quality, not price.
	Let me indicate some areas where I anticipate that we will be able to make improvements, in order to build and sustain support for the modernisation that we recognise is crucial. Choice, competition and the involvement of the private sector should only ever be a means to improve services for patients, not ends in themselves. Some services, such as accident and emergency or major trauma services, will clearly never be based on competition. People want to know that private companies cannot cherry-pick NHS activity, undermining existing NHS providers, and that competition must be fair.
	Under Labour, the private sector got a preferential deal, with £250 million paid for operations that never happened. We have to stop that. People want to know that GP commissioning groups cannot have a conflict of interest, are transparent in their decisions, and are accountable not only nationally, but locally, through the democratic input of health and well-being boards. We, too, want that to be the case. People want to know that the patient’s voice is genuinely influential, through HealthWatch and in commissioning. Doctors and nurses in the service have been clear: they want the changes to support truly integrated services, breaking down the institutional barriers that have held back modernisation in the past.
	As I told the House on 16 March, we are committed to listening, and we will take every opportunity to improve the Bill. The principles of the Bill are that patients should always share in decisions about their care; that front-line staff should lead the design of local services; that patients should have access to whichever services offer the best quality; that all NHS trusts should gain the freedoms of foundation trust status; that we should take out day-to-day political interference, through the establishment of a national NHS commissioning board and through strong independent regulation for safety, quality and effectiveness; that the public’s and patients’ voices must be strengthened; and that local government should be in the lead in public health strategy. Those are the principles of a world-class NHS which command widespread professional and public backing. All those principles will be pursued through the Bill, and our commitment as a coalition Government to them is undiminished.
	We support and are encouraged by all those across England who are leading the changes nationally and locally. We want them to know that they can be confident in taking this work forward. Our objective is to listen to them and support them, as we take the Bill through. No change is not an option. With an ageing and increasing population, new technologies and rising costs, we have to adapt and improve. Innovation and clinical leadership will be key. We want to reverse a decade of declining productivity. We have to make productive care and preventive services the norm, and we must continue to cut the costs of administration, quangos and bureaucracy. The House knows my commitment to the national health service and my passion for it to succeed. To protect the NHS for the future must mean change—not in the values of the NHS, but through bringing forward and empowering leadership in the NHS to secure the quality of services on which we all depend.
	Change is never easy, but the NHS is well placed to respond. I can tell the House today that the NHS is in a healthy financial position. Waiting times remain at historically low levels, as promised under the NHS constitution. Patients with symptoms of cancer now see a specialist more quickly than ever before. MRSA is at—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must be heard.

Andrew Lansley: MRSA is at its lowest level since records began. We have helped more than 2,000 patients have access to new cancer drugs that would previously have been denied to them. All that is a testament to the excellent work of NHS staff up and down the country,
	and we thank them for their efforts to achieve these results for their patients. The coalition Government are increasing NHS funding by £11.5 billion over this Parliament, but the service cannot afford to waste any money. We can sustain and build on those improvements only by modernising the service to be ever more efficient and effective with taxpayers’ money.
	The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set the NHS on a sustainable course, building on the commitment and skills of the people who work for it. Our purpose is simple: to provide the best health care service anywhere in the world. I commend this statement to the House.

John Healey: I thank the Secretary of State for Health for a copy of his statement shortly before he made it this afternoon. So Mr Speaker, in the middle of confusion, chaos and incompetence, the Prime Minister has pushed the Health Secretary out of the bunker to try and tell people what exactly and what on earth they are doing with the NHS. Why is the Health Secretary here and not the Prime Minister? After all, we have been told that the Prime Minister has taken charge and it was he who made his most personal pledge to protect the NHS and to stop top-down reorganisations that have got in the way of patient care. It is the Prime Minister who is now breaking his promises on the NHS.
	Will the Health Secretary tell us why the Tories did not tell people before the election about the biggest reorganisation in NHS history? Why did they not tell the Lib Dems about the reorganisation before the coalition agreement was signed? Whatever the Government say or do now, there is no mandate—either from the election or the coalition agreement—for this reckless and ideological upheaval in the health service. In truth, the Health Secretary is here only because there is a growing crisis of confidence over the far-reaching changes that the Government are making to the NHS.
	There is confusion at the heart of Government, with briefings and counter-briefings on all sides, and patients starting to see the NHS go backwards again under the Tories—with waiting times rising, front-line nursing staff cut and services cut back. Yet the Health Secretary has done nothing to restore public confidence in the Government’s handling of the NHS and nothing to convince people to back the Tories’ reorganisation plans. Everything he said today the Government were told about in the consultation—and they ignored it. Everything he said today the Government were told in Committee—and they rejected it.
	This is not just a problem with the pace of change; simply doing the wrong thing more slowly is not the answer. It is not just a problem with presentation. In fact, the more people see the plans, the more concerned they become about them. That is why there is growing criticism of the Tories’ plans for the NHS—from doctors, nurses, patients’ groups, NHS experts, the Health Select Committee, the Lib Dems and peers of all parties in the House of Lords. I have to hand it to the Health Secretary: it takes a special talent to unite opposition from Norman Tebbit and MC NxtGen. That is why Labour has been saying that the reorganisation requires a root-and-branch rethink and that the legislation requires radical surgery.
	There are fundamental flaws in what the Government are doing, not just in what they are saying. The test is whether the Prime Minister will now deal with these fundamental flaws. Will he radically safeguard commissioning to draw on the full range of NHS expertise, to prevent conflicts of interests, bonus payments to GPs and to guarantee that important decisions are taken in public not in private? Will he radically strengthen local accountability to the public and to patients? Will he delete the one third of the Bill that breaks up the NHS and makes it into a full-blown market ruled by the forces of market regulation and EU competition law? Will this be just a public relations exercise or will real changes be made in the NHS plans—or has the Prime Minister not yet told the Health Secretary? This is no way to run a Bill; this is no way to run a Government; this is no way to run the NHS.

Andrew Lansley: We heard from the Leader of the Opposition earlier that the NHS needed to change, but once again we have heard nothing from Labour Members about how it needs to change. It is not unusual to hear nothing from them. They say that we need to tackle the deficit, but they will not say how. They say that we must change the NHS, but they will not say how.
	Interestingly, in January the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said that he agreed with the aims of the Bill. He said that he supported a
	“greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes”.
	At the last election, his manifesto said that he wanted all NHS trusts to become foundation trusts. It said that he wanted patients to have access to every provider, be it private sector, voluntary sector or NHS-owned. Now we do not know what the Labour party’s policy is at all, but what I do know is that the Government will give leadership to the NHS, and that we will give the NHS a strategy enabling it to deliver improving results in future.
	The right hon. Gentleman clearly wrote his response to the statement before reading it. In fact, we have made it clear that we will listen to what is said about precisely the issues on which people in the NHS and people who depend on the NHS are united. They know which issues are really important. They know that we must be clear about accountability, and that there must be transparency. Clinicians throughout the health service want to work together, and want the structure of the service to help them to work together so that they can deliver more holistic and joined-up services to patients. We want that, and they want that. We will back up our strategy with detail, but from the right hon. Gentleman we heard no strategy, no detail, and no answers whatsoever.
	We are clear about the principles that we are pursuing through the reform and modernisation of the national health service. We are listening, and we are engaging with those principles. We are listening to the people in the health service who have come together to implement those principles, so that we can help them to do so effectively. Labour Members have not even listened to those who threw them out at the last election, because they are still wedded to the past and to a failed, top-down, centralised, bureaucratic approach.

Stephen Dorrell: All who genuinely wish the NHS well and consider it to be an important part of our national heritage will welcome
	my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that clinical practice delivered by the NHS is kept up to date with the best available medical practice, and responds effectively to the wishes of patients. Will he continue to develop effective commissioning as the best way of delivering that, building on 20 years of commitment to the principle of commissioning under Governments of all political complexions since 1990?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He knows and I know—and past Secretaries of State, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) also knew—that in order to deliver the best possible care in the NHS, we needed to engage clinical leadership more effectively. That is what these reforms are about. The modernisation of the NHS is about better and stronger clinical leadership delivering better commissioning of care and thereby helping to deliver better provision of care, and about allying that with democratic accountability at a local level. Neither of those things has happened sufficiently in the past, but both are at the heart of our Bill.

Ben Bradshaw: Contrary to what the Secretary of State has claimed, waiting times are already lengthening and the quality of service to patients is already deteriorating as a result of his ill-conceived upheaval of the health service. Why does he not abandon it, rather than just pausing for the Easter holidays, before he squanders all the improvements that were achieved under Labour Governments?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should denigrate what staff in the NHS have achieved over the past year. He will not have read the deputy chief executive’s report on NHS activity, which shows improvements in breast screening rates, improvements in bowel screening rates—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. I recognise that this subject inflames passions and that there are very strongly held views about it, but there is too much noise on both sides of the Chamber. I gently say to the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) that they should cease to yell at the Secretary of State from a sedentary position. It is very unseemly.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall not go through a long list, but many services in the NHS have improved and continue to improve. Our objective is very clear: it is to support that improvement, including improvement in waiting times. For example, last year the median wait in January for non-admitted patients was 4.8 weeks, whereas last year it was 4.9 weeks. For diagnostic tests, the average wait this year is 1.6 weeks, exactly the same as last year. Meanwhile, many other factors are continuing to improve as well.

Paul Beresford: As the Secretary of State may know, I still have a faint link with the NHS and medicine in general. The GPs I have met in my constituency and elsewhere are very much in favour of the proposals. In contrast, the complaints are circular
	letters that have been well organised. Does the Secretary of State agree that GPs will be devastated if there is any reversal and backtracking?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He and other Surrey Members will be aware of that primary care trust’s past failure to manage effectively within its budget. The GPs in Surrey are, like many others across the country, coming together and demonstrating that they can achieve much greater service improvement within NHS resources—and those resources will increase in future years.

Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the reorganisation and introduction of competition under this Bill have created chaos inside the national health service? What message does he have for the 40% of people who work for Rotherham PCT who have now taken redundancy, and who are getting out because they know they are aboard a sinking ship?

Andrew Lansley: As we have demonstrated, NHS performance is continuing to improve, and it will improve further with clinical leadership, but we can achieve that effectively only if we achieve a £1.9 billion a year reduction in administration costs in the NHS. We have started that process: since the election, we have reduced the number of managers in the NHS by 3,000 and increased the number of doctors by 2,500.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s continued support for the NHS in Cornwall, with the cash increases this year, the long overdue integration of adult social care with the NHS, and the real opportunity of giving power to local people through the health and well-being boards. Will he ensure that the central changes he wants to introduce to achieve the aim of “no decision about me without me” are kept absolutely at the heart of what he does?

Andrew Lansley: I will indeed do that, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. She represents a Cornwall seat, and she and I know that over the years many people in Cornwall have felt they wanted a greater sense of ownership of the decisions made in the health service, not only for individuals but for the health service in Cornwall itself. That is precisely what we are going to make available through both local commissioning and local authorities.

Glenda Jackson: The Secretary of State listed in his statement concerns to which he intends to listen, but every single one of them has been raised with him before, going back to the time of the publication of his White Paper. As he did not listen to those concerns then, why should any of us believe his positive commitment to listen to them now?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid the hon. Lady is completely wrong about that. We have continuously listened. After the publication of the White Paper, we had a full 12-week consultation with more than 6,000 responses, and in December’s Command Paper we set out a whole series of changes that were consequent on that, including to the structure of commissioning and the timetable for
	the transfer of NHS trusts into foundation trusts. In Committee, we have introduced further amendments, not least to make it clear that competition in the NHS will be on the basis of quality not price, which is very important because that is a concern that people raised.

Sajid Javid: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts in modernising the NHS. The concept of GP commissioning has been widely supported by politicians from all parties for many years. May I urge my right hon. Friend to keep putting patients first by increasing GP involvement in the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have now—earlier than any of us had imagined—arrived at the point where most of the country has pathfinder consortia in place. It is absolutely the right moment to engage with them to discuss how we can ensure that the concerns that have been properly raised, about transparency and accountability in governance and the avoidance of conflicts of interest, will be dealt with in the legislation. We want the legislation to work for them and the people we serve.

Meg Munn: The Secretary of State has spoken a great deal about ill people, but the health service is also, very importantly, about promoting health. With local authorities taking the lead in the public health strategy, what is his mechanism to ensure that GPs are fully involved and contribute fully to the wide range of initiatives on which primary care trusts took a lead, such as those on child protection, teenage pregnancy, diet and exercise, child safety and obesity?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Lady reads the Bill, she will see that one of its changes that has been most widely supported, including by local authorities across England, has been the transfer of public health leadership into the health and well-being boards, with ring-fenced budgets for local authorities. The previous Government could have done that, but they did not. Such an approach will allow continued engagement with general practitioners and their practices, both because they are participants in the health and well-being boards and because Public Health England and the local health and well-being board will be able to influence directly the quality and outcomes framework, which incentivises GPs in the work that they do.

John Redwood: Colleagues on this side of the House will know that the Secretary of State has a great passion for the health service, and great mastery of his brief. Will he confirm, for the sake of all hon. Members, that the object of getting rid of PCTs and top-down targets is to free a lot of money for patient care? That should be in the interests of all hon. Members and their constituents.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Before the election, the previous Labour Government said that it was necessary to save up to £20 billion in efficiencies in the NHS, but they never said they would reinvest that money in the NHS. We have said that we will reinvest it. In order to deliver those efficiencies,
	10% of that gain will be achieved by cutting the costs of bureaucracy and administration. We have set out how we will do that, but the previous Government never did.

George Howarth: Does the Secretary of State understand that those who care about the future of the NHS believe not only that he got his presentation wrong, but that his Bill is fundamentally wrong in principle?

Andrew Lansley: No, I do not accept that for a minute. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, has freely acknowledged that I have met and talked to many people in the NHS over the course of seven and a half years, and that I am passionately committed to the NHS. If one set of beliefs lies at the heart of the reforms and the Bill, it is the belief in the NHS as a free, comprehensive, high-quality service that delivers some of the best health care anywhere in the world. We will never achieve that without the clinical leadership that is essential to delivering high-quality health care.

John Pugh: I thank the Secretary of State for having the grace and courage to respond to legitimate concerns. Given the agreement that exists in the House—not about the effects of the Bill, on which there is no agreement, but about its aims—does he agree that we should not get hung up about whether substantial changes will in future be referred to as “tweaking”, “surgery” or, possibly, “surgical tweaking”? Is not the main thing to get a Bill that carries the broad support of Parliament, NHS professionals and the country? We do not need to sell this Bill better; we need to take the spectre of salesmanship out of the NHS.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and I know one another well enough to know that we share a commitment to the NHS and that I am determined. Perhaps I sometimes get very close to all of this because I am very close to the NHS. I spend my time thinking about this subject and I spend my time with people in the service. I spend my time trying to ensure that the Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right for people in the NHS—they want to be free. The British Medical Association made it clear that it wants an end to constant political interference in the NHS. We can do that only if we secure the necessary autonomy for the NHS, and if we make accountability transparent, rather than having constant interference from this place or from Richmond house.

Luciana Berger: How many managers who have lost their jobs will be re-employed during this pause?

Andrew Lansley: I do not have a figure for how many have been re-employed. The hon. Lady will know that under the process by which people agreed with the NHS to take resignation and, more recently, in voluntary redundancy terms, after six months there is an opportunity for people to take jobs—we are not depriving them permanently of the ability to take jobs. Indeed, one of the responsibilities of the commissioning consortia will be to find the best people, but we are doing that now. That is why we continue to make progress on the ground by the assignment
	of PCT staff to commissioning consortia and to local authorities, in order to ensure that they are beginning to take on their responsibilities.

Conor Burns: My right hon. Friend will know that many GPs are very excited by the opportunity that his reforms will give them to serve the needs of their local communities even better. Can he assure those GPs that he has no plans to water down that strengthening of their pivotal role in the national health service?

Andrew Lansley: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. This is born not of political opportunism, as it seems to have been characterised by the Opposition, but of a determination to support those people in constituencies that my hon. Friends on this side of the House have been talking to and listening to. As he knows, GPs in his area have come together. For example, when I met people at Southampton hospital recently, they were able to talk about how they were working together on improving the clinical design of services for patients in his area.

Malcolm Wicks: Why has the Secretary of State waited until now, after the passing of the Bill through its Committee stage, to announce a so-called natural break in which to listen to and engage with the public? Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but would not the normal process involve getting the brain into gear to avoid putting the foot in the mouth?

Andrew Lansley: If I did not come to the House to make a statement, I would be accused of not doing so, but when I do so, the Opposition ask why. The reason is very simple: it is because we are going to listen, and to engage with people actively over the course of the coming weeks, and I did not want the House to see that happening during the recess without having been told about it beforehand.

Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the most cynical people could criticise him for wanting to consult more about the changes that he wants? [ Laughter. ] And that only the most cynical could treat the NHS as a laughing matter? Will he maintain the goal of delivering the prize, which is to give local people, through their local GPs, more control over the resources that the NHS spends in their name?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I agree. Indeed, in north-east Essex, the consortium under Dr Shane Gordon’s leadership is doing exactly that. I personally think that leadership and listening are not mutually exclusive, and we are going to continue to do both.

Valerie Vaz: In the spirit of openness, will the Secretary of State please place in the House of Commons Library a copy of the legal advice on whether EU competition law will apply to the provisions in the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady should know, as a member of the Health Select Committee, that I wrote to the Chair of the Committee just last week and set out the position very fully. The Bill does not extend the scope or application of competition law at all.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that reduced bureaucracy and better local scrutiny and accountability will ensure a better NHS for all?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Locally, he can see how that is happening as GP leaders—including Dr Howard Stoate, whom Members will fondly remember, as the chair of the clinical cabinet in Bexley—are coming together to look at issues that the previous Government never dealt with, including those relating to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust and to Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup. They are coming forward with proposals to improve services for local people, and I applaud that kind of clinical leadership.

Joan Ruddock: Before the general election, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) promised an extra 3,000 midwives. Has the Secretary of State noted the alarming rise in preventable maternal mortality? Would the Secretary of State not do better to deliver on his Prime Minister’s promises and abandon his reckless reorganisation?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Lady must know that we continue to have a record number of midwives in training, and that the number of midwives in the health service has continued to increase since the election. In the financial year that is just starting, the number of commissions for training will continue to be at a record level.

Gordon Birtwistle: The Secretary of State is aware that under the Labour Government, accident and emergency and children’s services were transferred from Burnley to Blackburn. The transfer was opposed by the majority of GPs and 95% of the local community. It was supported only by the bureaucrats in the PCT and the SHA and by prima donna consultants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his new proposals that will never happen again and that such decisions will be taken only following full consultation and agreement with GPs and local communities, rather than being driven through as they were by the previous Government?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In Burnley and other places—I think not least of Maidstone—decisions were made in the past, under a Labour Government, that clearly did not meet the tests that we now apply, which are about public engagement, the support of the local authority, engagement with general practices leading commissioning, the clinical case and the responsiveness to patient choice. Those tests will be met in future. As we go through the painful process of examining how they are applied to the situations that we have inherited, on occasion we can say things to help colleagues, but sometimes we cannot.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is not only the Health Secretary who cares about the NHS. Most people in the House support the NHS in their constituencies and the work that it carries out, but the mistakes that the Secretary of State has made—I hope he will admit that he has made mistakes by not listening—mean that there will already be costs to the health
	service because of the Bill. Will he publish an impact assessment of the costs to the health service so far of his failed policies?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong on a number of counts. First, we have listened and we will continue to listen. Secondly, of course there are costs in reducing the number of managers in the NHS, but it is absolutely essential that we reverse the decade of declining productivity in the NHS that took place as the number of managers went up by 78%. How can that be the right way forward? Under Labour, we had more managers and less productivity.

Andrew Percy: The Secretary of State will be keen to know that many of the GPs I have met in my constituency are keen on the idea of GP commissioning, but there is undoubtedly concern about the exact role of the private sector in the NHS. May I urge the Secretary of State to use these next few weeks or months to ensure that in the country and if necessary in the Bill we make it perfectly clear that the private sector will not be allowed to undercut or undermine our local hospitals?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our manifesto was clear that patients should be able to have access to a provider who gives them the best quality, be it the NHS, a private sector provider or a voluntary provider. That was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and in the Labour manifesto. It is always about ensuring that that provider is properly qualified and that the basis of that choice is quality, not price. There cannot be a race to the bottom on price. We make it very clear in the legislation—it is important to set this out—that the commissioners of local services will also, through designating services, be able to ensure that where patients need services to be maintained and need continuity of services they can set that out themselves.

Dennis Skinner: Why does the Secretary of State not admit that the policy is unravelling before the eyes of the British public? The thousands that have been writing to MPs in every constituency now know that the truth is out. Instead of waiting for the natural break, and then a reshuffle, and then a resignation, he should do the honourable thing now and resign today.

Andrew Lansley: I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing: I and my colleagues on the Government Benches talk to people in the constituencies who are getting on with this. That is what is so impressive. People across the NHS are seeing the opportunity to bring more clinical leadership and more democratic local accountability to fashioning an improving health service. That is what I am determined to achieve.

Priti Patel: Excessive bureaucracy and a record level of managers have dominated health care provision in mid-Essex. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that, under his reforms, the funding for that excess will go to front-line patient care in the constituency of Witham?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I can. Under the coalition Government, in mid-Essex there has been a 3.2% increase in cash for the NHS this year compared with last year. Not only that, but more of that money will, as a consequence of our changes, get to the front line to deliver improving services for patients.

Clive Efford: “No decisions about us without us” could apply to every single person who works in the NHS who has been telling the Secretary of State that these are reckless changes. Throughout the country changes are taking place. Now he says that he is going to be listening. If so, we can anticipate some more changes. Will he therefore instruct everyone in the NHS who is currently restructuring on the basis of the Bill to stop that restructuring until we know exactly what the Government intend to do?

Andrew Lansley: No, I will not, because we are very clear about the strategy and the principles of the Bill. We are equally clear that now we have the opportunity to work with the developing GP pathfinder consortia, the health and well-being boards in local authorities and the wider community to ensure that the implementation of the Bill and its structure support those developing organisations.

Steve Brine: I thank the Secretary of State for his helpful and useful update this afternoon, and welcome his assurances that the coalition wants to reform and modernise our NHS, right in line with its founding principles. He knows that I will continue to argue for greater transparency for the new GP consortia, and I hope we can still find a way to do that, but I warmly welcome his listening exercise, the measures contained in the Bill and the way he has made himself freely available to colleagues since taking up his post last year. May I urge him to continue doing that both in the House and, of course, outside it?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will do that, not only formally across the country but in the informal manner that we do in the House. His point of view exactly illustrates the purpose of my statement. He served on the Committee that debated the Bill. Notwithstanding the good progress that the Bill has made and that we are making around the country, people have legitimate concerns and questions. They want to raise those and to know that we will listen and act on them.

Barbara Keeley: Can the Secretary of State say more about the future of care trusts? Integration of health and social care is vital to all our constituents. With all the uncertainty, staff are being lost and more could be lost. During this natural break, what can the Secretary of State say to preserve the continuity of those people doing that vital work and the continuing support for care trusts?

Andrew Lansley: I reiterate the point that I made a moment ago. There is nothing in what I have said today that should do other than give people on the ground confidence that they are building the improvement of services that they need for the future. At the heart of that is the integration of health and social care. We as a Government have made available in this new financial year £648 million through the NHS specifically to build that kind of
	integration between health and social care. It has been insufficient in the past; we are building it now. As the hon. Lady knows, the Bill allows care trusts to continue in formation, but it is also possible for care trusts to redesign around commissioning consortia on the one hand and health and well-being boards on the other.

Margot James: The Leader of the Opposition stated his willingness to work with the Government on the NHS reforms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good place for him to start would be with a re-reading of his party’s manifesto at the last election, which supported virtually every principle in our NHS Bill, with one important difference—it was without the additional funding to match?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am not sure which Labour party we would be expected to engage with—the one whose manifesto agreed with us, the one for which the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne spoke at a King’s Fund meeting in January when he agreed with us, or the one that we saw in Committee, which opposed everything, tried to wreck the Bill and clearly has gone back to the Holborn and St Pancras view of the NHS.

Jim Cunningham: It is obvious that the public are extremely concerned about the Bill. Why does the Secretary of State not suspend the Bill and bring forward new proposals that we can all support?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the public support the principles of the Bill. The public want patient choice. When they are exercising their choice over treatment, they want to be able to go to whoever is the best provider. Patients believe that general practitioners are the best people to design services and care on their behalf. Patients, the public and professionals support the principles of “no decision about me without me”, focusing on outcomes and delivering an outcomes framework, and the devolution of responsibility. What we are talking about now is ensuring that other important principles, such as governance, accountability, transparency and multi-professional working, are genuinely supported by the structure of the Bill.

Therese Coffey: My constituents in Suffolk were very concerned at the last election about the fact that only two doctors covered them for out-of-hours care, and that was for 600,000 patients. They welcome the reforms in the Bill. Indeed, Waveney and Great Yarmouth have come together as one pathfinder consortium and resumed out-of-hours care. Will the Secretary of State assure me that such important changes will continue to be important for patient delivery in the new Bill?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. When people talk about primary care trust commissioning, they might care to look at the report produced by the Care Quality Commission on how primary care trusts went about commissioning out-of-hours care. The answer is that they pretty much did it on the basis of cost and volume, rather than quality, and once they had a contract they did not monitor it, follow it up
	or ensure that the right quality was there, including the right calibre of doctors. It is clear that general practice-led commissioning consortia will take a wholly different and preferable approach to that kind of commissioning.

Alison McGovern: The Prime Minister’s commission on the future of nursing and midwifery reported a year ago in March 2010. Of the 20 recommendations, all related to improving the quality of care in the NHS, which is my constituents’ priority, not top-down reorganisation. During the pause that the Secretary of State has announced today, will the Government finally find time to respond to that important report?

Andrew Lansley: Yes.

Richard Drax: Can the Secretary of State reassure me that any further listening will mean that retaining local community hospitals, which are much loved across the country and particularly in South Dorset, remains top of the agenda?

Andrew Lansley: I can assure my hon. Friend that one of the central beauties of the Bill is that in future it will matter less what my priorities are and much more what the priorities are of his local communities and general practitioners and others who are responsible for commissioning in his area. On that basis, I have no doubt about the importance and priority that they will attach to community hospitals.

Nicholas Dakin: I share and welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to reduce bureaucracy, so I am concerned to know why Monitor’s budget is increasing by 600% over four years to police the marketisation of the NHS. Is that not poor value for money?

Andrew Lansley: The Government are introducing for the very first time a clear limitation and reduction on the running costs of the NHS. That will include the Department of Health, the arm’s length bodies, the strategic health authorities and the primary care trusts—the whole shooting match. We will reduce those costs by more than a third in real terms. Monitor forms part of that. We have made it clear that its estimated total running costs will be between £50 million and £70 million. That is more than at present because its responsibilities will be considerably larger than they are at present.

Mike Hancock: As the Secretary of State will be aware, I chaired the majority of the Public Bill Committee’s sittings. It was the longest Bill Committee for 12 years. During that time, more than 100 amendments were voted on in formal Divisions, and many hundreds of others were agreed to. If we are taking several months to look at this again, how on earth will the time be found to ensure that this House has enough time to scrutinise properly any changes, bearing in mind how much time has been spent on the Bill as it stands? I want an assurance, as I hope the whole House does, that we will be given sufficient time and that the Bill will not be steamrollered or bulldozed through the House.

Andrew Lansley: I know that the whole Committee will have been grateful to my hon. Friend for his chairmanship, because what was achieved in Committee, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), was that every inch of the Bill was scrutinised. It is our intention to secure proper scrutiny for any changes that result from our engagement.

Jim Shannon: The Public Bill Committee was one of the busiest since 2002, according to the Clerk, with 26 sittings and more than 100 Divisions. Does the Secretary of State not agree that that reflects the level of concern that the general public have, but that they will exercise theirs at the next general election?

Andrew Lansley: No, I am afraid I do not accept that. All that 100 Divisions demonstrate is that time and again the Labour party was simply trying to divide the Committee in order to delay or, indeed, to wreck the Bill.

Tony Baldry: GPs in Oxfordshire want to be catalysts for change. Collectively and collegiately, they want to be able to design NHS services for the best and optimal benefit of the people of Oxfordshire. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this statement means that they can continue to design those services and continue to plan to have an Oxfordshire-wide GP consortium, knowing that they will be able to go forward in the future to plan the best health services for the people of Oxfordshire?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I can indeed confirm that. Having joined my hon. Friend in Banbury in the past and met GPs there, I know and can say that, if they had been more fully engaged, as our plans would have meant, in the design of clinical services in Banbury or in the future of the Horton general hospital, for example, we would have had better and earlier outcomes than was in fact the case.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State, in his letter to me of 23 March, dismissed my request that he discuss with the Comptroller and Auditor General concerns about the conflicts of interest which might arise from GP commissioning. The Secretary of State, in his statement today, refers to the concerns about those specific conflicts of interest. Will he now engage in a discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor General to receive best advice on methods of Government procurement?

Andrew Lansley: I do not think I dismiss anybody; I might not agree with people, but I do not dismiss them. If I recall correctly, I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion because he misunderstood the fact that the consortia are separate statutory bodies, not private bodies, and separate from GP practices, which are individual contractors to the NHS. The confusion between those two things meant that his point was not valid.

Duncan Hames: My constituents, who have watched primary care trusts halve the number of community hospital medical beds in Wiltshire, know that NHS reform is needed to make decision makers accountable, so how does the Secretary of State propose to strengthen the public and patient voices on the boards of the GP consortia that will replace them?

Andrew Lansley: Clearly, this is an area that we will engage in over the coming weeks, but the Bill is already clear that the consortia must engage the public and patients directly. We can look at how we can strengthen that, but we must never lose sight of the fact that, through local health and wellbeing boards, we are creating for the first time a very much stronger public representative voice in relation to all such decisions, including commissioning and planning, and that, through HealthWatch, we are creating for patients an altogether stronger, more comprehensive patient voice, which will have a statutory right to be consulted and to express a view on all those commissioning issues.

Diana Johnson: Exactly how long will the natural break be, and how will we know whether the Secretary of State has listened?

Andrew Lansley: I think the hon. Lady must accept that, because I have come to the House and made it very clear that we are going to do this thing. We are going to set it out, I have done so before the recess, and it will take place during the recess and beyond. But, from my point of view, I think that in the formation of the policy and its introduction there has been a genuine process of listening. It is now a genuine process of listening and engaging to ensure that we get the implementation right.

Peter Bone: This has been a very good day for the coalition Government, a great day for the Secretary of State and a superb day for Parliament. What Opposition Members do not seem to understand is that this is about Parliament scrutinising a Bill and improving it. Does the Secretary of State agree that he should listen not to those dinosaurs but to Parliament?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My objective is to ensure that the statutory structure for the NHS moves on from one that had virtually no serious accountability. As Secretary of State, I could have done most of this without the legislation: I could have just abolished most of the primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. Previous Secretaries of State behaved in that cavalier fashion, but we are not doing that; we are giving Parliament the opportunity—a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to give the NHS greater autonomy and, in the process, to be transparent about the structure of accountability.

Kate Green: Is the Secretary of State aware of the instability that we are experiencing in the management of NHS services in Trafford, with provider services off at Ashton-under-Lyne, Wigan and Leigh on a temporary basis, with Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust forced to find a new partner for its management, and the primary care trust forced, first, to combine with other Greater Manchester care trusts for one year, before splitting into GP consortia next year? In view of all that instability and the uncertainty that it is causing to staff in the NHS and at Trafford, will the Secretary of State ensure that he has the adequate support in terms of project and change management that appears to be so lacking at present?

Andrew Lansley: Let me make it clear to the hon. Lady that many of the things she is describing in Trafford are the result of things that the last Labour Government failed to do. For example, the last Labour Government said that all NHS trusts should meet the criteria to become foundation trusts by December 2008, but they did not do it. We are now having to help NHS trusts to meet the kind of quality and viability standards that they did not meet in the past, which is at the heart of many of the problems she describes. Do we have management resources? Yes, we do. That is one of the reasons I invited Sir David Nicholson, as chief executive of the NHS, to be the chief executive of the new NHS commissioning board so that the design of commissioning for the future will be completely consistent with the transition and the management of the change in the NHS today.

Mary Macleod: I thank my right hon. Friend for standing firm in his desire to improve the NHS. Will he join me in commending the work of the Great West commissioning consortium in London and others, who have approached these reforms with professional leadership and commitment to make the NHS more efficient and improve public health, ensuring better care for all patients?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I do join my hon. Friend in applauding the Great West commissioning consortium, because it and others across London are demonstrating that instead of having the top-down diktat of how services should be changed in London, they are in the process of designing, from the point of view of the populations they serve, what the requirement is for them and their services in their area. That is a better and more sustainable basis on which to design community-led and primary care-led services for the future.

David Anderson: This debate was confused before today. Can the Secretary of State put in writing exactly what things will be put on hold and what things will carry on? For example, he said that he is taking a natural break but GP commissioning groups can still continue to be set up. If the natural break is a good idea, surely that is a pointless exercise.

Andrew Lansley: No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. I was very clear in my statement and in subsequent responses to questions. Right across the country, there are thousands of people who are developing the pathfinder consortia, taking NHS trusts through to foundation trust status, and building the health and well-being boards and new public health structures in local government. They should be confident in doing that, because the Government continue to be committed to achieving those changes. In the process of doing so, we will engage with them to ensure that the legislation specifically gives them the support that they need.

Nadhim Zahawi: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on engaging and listening. We have all received the 50 or so e-mail circulars from constituents who are concerned, but that does not reflect the evidence on the ground. GPs in Shipston in my constituency are absolutely passionate about the reforms and want to engage fully with them, as do 220 other groups—87% of the country. May I
	make a suggestion to the Secretary of State? Perhaps we should bring all those people who are passionate about this reform and want to take party politics out of it together with Labour Members on a platform so that we can take this forward without petty politics derailing a brilliant piece of legislation.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Labour Members sit and laugh about this, but they ought to realise that 1 million patients a day visit their local general practice surgery. GPs across the country who have come together to form pathfinder consortia—87% of the country—are doing it on the basis that they can improve services for patients. I suspect that they understand the needs of their local community and patients better than many Labour Members, who are not listening to their GPs locally.

Grahame Morris: I would like to thank the Secretary of State for single-handedly destroying the Government’s reputation on the NHS through this Bill. No amount of minor changes or slowing down of the pace will address the Bill’s fundamental failure to protect the public from privatisation by stealth. If he refuses to resign, is he worthy of his nickname, Broken Arrow—he doesn’t work and he can’t be fired?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman might like to talk to Dr Stewart Findlay, who is among those leading the pathfinder consortium in County Durham. He might like to talk to people locally who are piloting the new 111 telephone system, which will give better access and better urgent care to patients. Instead of sitting there making rather absurd political points, why does he not go and talk to people who are delivering services to patients? That is what the NHS is really about.

David Rutley: In east Cheshire, there is no lament for the passing of the PCTs. In fact, there is a positive response to GPs having a greater say in how health care is delivered locally. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how GPs will be updated on progress over the coming weeks?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are not only developing communication with GPs in pathfinder consortia, but, more importantly, creating a learning network among GPs in pathfinder consortia, so that these groups across the country will not only learn from each other, but, we hope, arrive at a set of views that help us to design a service that supports them.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State, who tells us how much he studies the NHS, must know that the King’s Fund tells us that under the Labour Government, Britain’s NHS was the most efficient in the entire world. On that basis, a broad coalition of people, including health experts and the Liberal Democrats, is telling him that this policy is wrong. He apparently came here today to tell us why he is right and all those people are wrong. Is this a genuine consultation, or is it just a pause to get through the local elections before he does what he wants to do anyway?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost every count. We have seen a decade of declining productivity in the NHS. The Office for National Statistics and the
	National Audit Office set that out recently. We have seen an NHS that, despite record increases in funding, which are welcome, is still not meeting the best European cancer survival rates, as was made clear by the NAO. We need to improve the NHS. The Government are not discounting anybody’s views on how we can best achieve that. In the spirit of continuous improvement in the NHS, there is a spirit of continuously listening about how to make that happen.

Dan Byles: Does the Secretary of State share my amazement that in recent months the Labour party seems to have U-turned on patient choice and on any willing provider, and does not appear to support putting clinicians in charge of commissioning health care? Its only policies seem to be “Save the PCTs”, “Save the SHAs” and “Save NHS bureaucracy”.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps having increased the number of managers in the NHS by 70%, the Labour party thought that it would be swept to victory on the votes of NHS administrators. That did not happen. People in the NHS knew that waste, inefficiency and excess bureaucracy were not the way to deliver the best care for patients. That was Labour’s way; it will not be our way.

Bill Esterson: Given that the Secretary of State will not instruct NHS managers to take a natural break in implementing his so-called reforms, does he understand why his intention to make changes after the natural break might be questioned? As colleagues have suggested, is the natural break just like every other Tory consultation—a sham?

Andrew Lansley: There is nothing sham about this. This is serious business, not a political game, as it appears to be for Opposition Members. Tens of thousands of people across the NHS are engaged in managing and developing new services, which will deliver improving outcomes and be more responsive to patients, through devolved decision making in the NHS. I think that we should simply help and support them, not least by listening to them.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) that the budget for Monitor will be between £50 million and £70 million, but the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, on which I sat, heard that it would be between £40 million and £130 million. Does that not show that not only are the Government not listening to this side of the country but are not even listening to their own facts?

Andrew Lansley: I answered that question earlier.

Murder of PC Ronan Kerr

Owen Paterson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the murder of Police Constable Ronan Kerr in Omagh on Saturday afternoon. Shortly before 4 pm, a device exploded, destroying his car in Highfield close, a quiet residential neighbourhood in the town: 25-year-old Constable Kerr died as a result of his injuries. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of this brave young officer. He was a local man who, having gained a university degree, decided upon a career in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He dedicated his life to the service of the whole community; the terrorists who murdered him want to destroy that community. The contrast could not be clearer.
	These terrorists continue to target police officers and endanger the lives of the public. We all pay tribute to the PSNI and the Garda for their remarkable commitment and for their success in thwarting a number of recent attacks. Working seamlessly together, last year they charged 80 people with terrorist offences, compared with 17 in 2009. However, regrettably, on Saturday a device exploded, killing Constable Kerr. His murder was a revolting and cowardly act perpetrated by individuals intent on defying the wishes of the people.
	Following Saturday’s attack, the PSNI immediately began a painstaking murder inquiry. The House will understand that that meticulous work is still in the early stages. I saw the Chief Constable yesterday and I know that the PSNI, working closely with the Garda Siochana, will not rest until these evil people are brought to justice. I reiterate in the strongest terms the Chief Constable’s appeal for anyone with any information to bring it to the police.
	The PSNI has support from right across the community and is responsible to locally elected politicians. Just over a year ago, we strongly supported the previous Government’s determination to devolve policing and justice, and we backed the very significant financial package that accompanied that devolution. After the election we endorsed proposals for a further £50 million for the PSNI, specifically to confront the terrorist threat. In the national security strategy, published last October, we made countering terrorist groups a tier 1 priority. We have agreed an exceptional £200 million of additional funding over four years, as requested by the Chief Constable, so that he can plan ahead with certainty.
	As the Prime Minister said on Saturday,
	“the British Government stands fully behind the Chief Constable and his officers as they work to protect Northern Ireland from terrorism”.
	That cannot be done by a security response alone, crucial though that is. It can be resolved in the long term only by the community itself, together with strong leadership by local politicians. That leadership was evident again this morning when the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Justice Minister stood as one with the Chief Constable to reiterate their determination that these terrorists will never succeed. They all called for the active support of the PSNI. They spoke for the
	people of Northern Ireland, and their condemnation of this grotesque murder has been echoed in London, Dublin and Washington.
	Our clear and united message to these terrorists is that they will not destabilise the power-sharing institutions at Stormont, they will not deter young Catholic men and women from joining the police service, and they will not drag Northern Ireland back to the past.
	Thirteen years ago, the agreement was endorsed by overwhelming majorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the true democratic voice of the people of Ireland, north and south. They, above all, will ensure that the terrorists fail. The visit of Her Majesty the Queen will shortly reinforce the fact that relations within these islands have never been stronger.
	Today, politics in Northern Ireland is stable. The democratic process is established. An Assembly has completed its first full term in decades. At the elections in May, voters will choose their politicians to serve in the new Assembly based on everyday bread-and-butter issues. That is democracy in action.
	Those who murdered police Constable Ronan Kerr fear democracy. The Omagh bomb in 1998 did not destroy the peace process. The terrorists failed then and they will fail now. They will not deflect us from our shared determination to build a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland for everyone.
	In the powerful and moving words of Constable Kerr’s mother yesterday:
	“We were so proud of Ronan and all that he stood for. Don’t let his death be in vain.”

Shaun Woodward: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The House can only echo and underline the sincerity and unity with which the leaders of all Northern Ireland’s political parties—nationalist, republican and Unionist—have spoken. The Opposition are part of that single voice, which reverberated around the world this weekend.
	We remember Constable Ronan Kerr with profound respect. Our hearts go out to his mother and family, and to the people of Omagh, for whom the brutal assassination reopens a deep wound. We think, too, of the police family of Northern Ireland, who today deeply mourn their colleague, but will be at work, the gravest risks to each no less, serving the community selflessly.
	The men and women of the PSNI do not see themselves as extraordinary, but in what we ask of them, in the gravest risks that they daily face, we know them as extraordinary. In his courage and service, Ronan Kerr exemplified that spirit. His commitment to working for one community—Protestant and Catholic—stands in absolute juxtaposition to the deluded and demonic deeds of those who targeted him.
	However futile their actions, those behind the psychotic acts of violence seek to bring fear and terror back to the streets of Northern Ireland. Constable Kerr was not an isolated target, nor was the attack random. His death is profoundly shocking, but an attack on a police officer is not a surprise.
	When the Belfast agreement was signed, as the head of MI5 acknowledged last year, we all hoped that the residual threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland would remain low and gradually decline. Regrettably, optimism must give way to realism. The threat is not low: today it
	is severe. It is more serious today than in nearly 15 years and it is ongoing. A serious terrorist incident was attempted almost every week last year—a dramatic and regrettable escalation on previous years. Those people have improved capacity, increasingly sophisticated technical and engineering capability, and they aspire to extend their reach.
	Today’s terrorists may have little or no community support, but we make a grave mistake if we do not recognise that, in addition to those who refused to accept the peace agenda, a new generation is growing up, delusionally embracing a new wave of criminal and deadly violence. Their numbers grow significantly. Bordering on psychotic, their ambition is to instil fear through attempted bombings and murders. Their aspirations extend beyond Northern Ireland to Britain.
	Excepting national security, responsibility today for policing and justice is devolved to Stormont. However, devolution does not absolve us at Westminster of our broader responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State recently succeeded in persuading the Treasury to provide additional resources from the reserve. He is to be congratulated on that. That, of course, was before this attack.
	If the Chief Constable should require—to fulfil the ongoing demands of community policing for the public and, of course, for the safety of his officers—further additional resources for overtime, forensics, vehicles and other items to meet the threat, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that they will be agreed and made available without delay?
	To tackle today’s threat, we must ensure that we not only contain the existing terrorists, but do all we can to stop alienated young people being drawn into that pattern of crime. The Secretary of State will know of the work of Co-operation Ireland, which is urgently seeking additional financial support for its critical work from, among others, the British Government. He knows the former deputy Chief Constable, Peter Sheridan, who leads that work. The organisation has made cutting-edge proposals, tackling the sectarian legacy but also dealing with real problems in the present. Will the Secretary of State consider the proposals sympathetically and renew his support for additional funding with the Chancellor?
	The Home Secretary raised the threat level in Great Britain last September. To ensure that we are guided not by optimism, but by realism, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the Government will learn from not only the mistakes that we made in the past, but the security measures that we got right?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is satisfied from discussions with the Home Secretary that here in Britain police forces have and will continue to have the resources they need to address the threat appropriately? Will he also confirm that, at all levels of Government, there is no complacency? Prevention should be our guide.
	On national security, and if we are to learn, as the head of MI5 said, from “the pattern of history”, will the Secretary of State tell the House that he is fully satisfied with the co-operation between the PSNI and forces here in Britain, including on timely and comprehensive sharing of information?
	Without capability, the threat from terrorists will be significantly contained. Those who supply the criminals must also be brought to justice. Will the Secretary of
	State confirm that anyone involved today or in the past in the supply of weapons or explosives will not be given immunity from prosecution? Will he confirm that, should the PSNI wish to conduct interviews with any foreign nationals currently in Britain, the Government would immediately help facilitate that?
	Hon. Members will have seen the statement that Constable Kerr’s mother made on television last night. Yesterday was mothering Sunday. When so many sons and daughters remembered what their mothers had given for them, Constable Kerr’s mother, in her darkest hours of grief, shared with our country what her precious son meant to her and her family. We all have a duty to ensure that Ronan’s death will not be in vain. Let us be judged on what we now do.

Owen Paterson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and support, which send a strong signal across the world that the House is united on the issue.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned contingency. We have made it clear that, as under the arrangements that he fixed with the Executive at the time, should the threat increase, we are prepared to consider the reserve, but let us look at what we have done. We confirmed £50 million last year and got an exceptional £200-million programme agreed this year for the next four years. Today, the Chief Constable said:
	“We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment.”
	As I said in the statement, we are supportive of work with community groups, and I spoke to the chairman of Co-operation Ireland this morning. We will consider a range of alternatives because, as I made clear, there is not just a security solution.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made counter-terrorism a priority, and budgets are protected. I am absolutely confident that there is increasing and improved co-ordination between the PSNI and GB-based forces. She came to Belfast to discuss that with the Chief Constable a few months ago.
	Finally, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no immunity has been given to anyone. If he were present for the statement from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he would have heard him say quite clearly that Musa Kusa is not being offered any immunity from British or international justice. He also said during his statement that we believe in the rule of law.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a matter of the utmost gravity, which is being treated as such by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. However, I hope the House will understand when I remind Members of the very heavy pressures upon time, the further Government statement to follow and an Opposition day debate. Therefore, brevity from Back Bench and Front alike from now on is vital, and it will be enforced if necessary from the Chair. It is no good Members saying, “Ah, but the point I had to make was important.” They are all important, but we must make progress, and I cannot guarantee accommodating everybody.

Laurence Robertson: May I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement, and on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee join him in condemning this evil and cowardly murder? I do not believe that those people have any legitimate political aims, but, if they do, is it not worth drawing a parallel and reminding them that a murderous campaign by the IRA made any change in the jurisdiction and constitutional position of Northern Ireland less, rather than more, likely?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his comments and for the Committee’s support on this issue. We are quite clear that there are now mechanisms for everyone in Northern Ireland to pursue their legitimate political ambitions by peaceful, democratic means. There is absolutely no excuse, and no place for violence that is in theory for a political cause.

Nigel Dodds: Our sympathies and prayers are with the Kerr family at this terrible time. I spoke to Mrs Kerr yesterday in her family home. Her courage and bravery, and that of her son Ronan, stand in stark contrast to the cowardly callousness of those who murdered him. At this time, does the Secretary of State agree that the best answer, as I said at Prime Minister’s questions only last Wednesday, is for the people of Northern Ireland to stand together, as they are standing together, as one community, to reject these men of violence, and to keep Northern Ireland moving forward? That is the clear, united voice coming from Northern Ireland and this House today, and Ronan’s death will not be in vain.

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. For Mrs Kerr, yesterday afternoon, under those circumstances, on mother’s day, to welcome politicians to her house and to come out after that to make the statement that she made, was a quite remarkable moment. We all owe it to her to do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says—to rally round together. I encourage everyone to participate, campaign and vote in the coming elections in Northern Ireland, to show that that is the way for Northern Ireland to progress.

Kris Hopkins: May I offer my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Constable Ronan Kerr? Will the Secretary of State join me in continuing to support, honour and celebrate the brave men and women of the PSNI, which can today proudly and rightly say that it is drawn from all communities in Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we now have a police service that is well manned with personnel from right across the community, with strong local support, and one that is endorsed by all the main political parties. That is a major force for good.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As the only leader of a Northern Ireland party who is a Member of this House, I wish to add the voice of the Social Democratic and Labour party to those who have
	condemned this murder, and who are determined that its perpetrators are brought to justice. I was happy yesterday to speak to Mrs Nuala Kerr, and to her two sons and daughter, to convey those sympathies on behalf of the wider community and my party.
	Such killing was always wrong. It was wrong even when there was some political support for such violence. While we grieve for Constable Kerr and remember Constable Carroll, let us include in our prayers all those who have died throughout Northern Ireland.
	Given the level of infiltration of the dissident groups by the security services, will the Secretary of State give a firm assurance that the PSNI will receive every scrap of information and intelligence that is held by the security services that could be relevant to its investigation of this appalling murder of Constable Ronan Kerr? May I join other hon. Members in urging all members of the wider community in Northern Ireland who have information to pass it on to the PSNI in order to assist with the inquiry?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We must have much shorter questions, although I understand their importance.

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Lady’s comments. Her party has a proud record of pursuing its political ambitions by democratic means through the most difficult times. She asked about the security services. I shall repeat the comments of Lord Carlile, who is an independent assessor of these matters:
	“MI5 and the PSNI are working very closely together and one really could not have more work being done and more energetically to try and deal with what is a very difficult threat”.

Tom Brake: Will the Secretary of State join me in commending Nuala Kerr for the conspicuous and formidable moral leadership she has shown since the callous and senseless murder of her son, and in urging all politicians to demonstrate the same conspicuous and formidable moral leadership in dealing with the terrorists who murdered her son?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that strong comment. I entirely concur with what he said about Mrs Kerr, and I remind everyone of what she said yesterday.
	“We all need to stand up and be counted and to strive for equality…We don’t want to go back into the dark days again of fear and terror.”

Naomi Long: May I add my sincere sympathies to those expressed by the Secretary of State to the family, colleagues and friends of Constable Ronan Kerr. I also add to the Secretary of State’s call to those who have information that could lead to those who perpetrated the attack being brought to justice. Their destructive and murderous attack is in stark contrast to the constructive role that the PSNI plays in our community in trying to build for the future.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that this was an attempt to drive young Catholics out of the PSNI, and to drive a wedge between it and the community? Does he agree that the best way to avoid that is for us to stand shoulder to shoulder with those police officers and give them our full support?

Owen Paterson: I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s supportive comments. She rightly paid tribute to the Kerr family. I again quote Mrs Kerr, who yesterday said:
	“I urge all Catholic members not to be deterred”.
	I do not believe that they will be.

Ben Wallace: The thing that sets the Provisional IRA apart from the dissident republicans is that in the early 1990s the Provisional IRA recognised that above what it wanted was what the public and community wanted, and that the community did not want violence as a way of solving the troubles. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell us whether the whole Catholic community is fully behind the family of Constable Kerr, and will he consider redoubling his efforts to ensure that more Catholics join the PSNI?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend gives me an excellent opportunity to confirm that to my knowledge there is overwhelming support for the legitimate institutions and for the legitimate, peaceful parties—I cite as an example the minute’s silence at the Gaelic Athletics Association game yesterday in Tyrone, which is a very strong republican area. There is absolutely no place for political violence in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: May I also join the Secretary of State in extending my deepest sympathy to Mrs Kerr and her family? Does he share my concern that, more than two years on, those who were charged with the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll are still to come to trial? Will he take this opportunity to voice his strong support for Minister Ford’s efforts to speed up the justice system in Northern Ireland, so that those who go out to murder police officers will be reminded not only that they will be caught, but that if they are convicted they will spend most if not the whole of the rest of their lives in prison?

Owen Paterson: The right hon. Gentleman will have direct experience of these matters and I know that there has been frustration in the past about the slowness of the system, so I congratulate Justice Minister Ford on having introduced measures to speed things up. I also point out that there were 17 charges in 2009, that the number jumped to 80 in 2010 and that there have already been 16 charges this year, so we are definitely bringing in measures to speed things up.

Patrick Mercer: The death of Constable Kerr is obviously an extremely sad event, but will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the policemen and soldiers who cleared a 40 lb anti-personnel device this time last week in the centre of Londonderry, and will he explain whether he believes that the two incidents are linked?

Owen Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am happy to put on the record my wholehearted congratulations—I touched on this in my statement—of the work not just of the PSNI but of the Garda Siochana, who are working extremely closely. I think we should pay tribute to the co-operation we are getting from the Dublin Government, from both parties. I have talked to
	Eamon Gilmore—the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Tanaiste—and to Alan Shatter, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. Today, I also talked to Martin Callinan, the Commissioner, and I confirm that we are working extremely closely. My hon. Friend is right that there has been a succession of events, week after week; I would not want to comment today on whether they are linked to this one, but we are determined to work together and bear down on these dangerous people.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his leadership at this time, which is much appreciated by MPs from Northern Ireland. We do not want to be dragged back to the past and the dark history that we had for many years. I am aware that there has been a large reduction in the number of police officers, which might have fallen to approximately 7,000. What steps will the Secretary of State be taking in relation to resources and training to ensure that the stipulated 7,500 figure is reached through the urgent and immediate training of officers to ensure that we have significant and adequate police coverage on the ground?

Owen Paterson: On police numbers, we have contributed major extra funds this year, as requested by the Chief Constable. I repeat what he said today:
	“We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment.”
	How he divides up the funds that have been provided to him and the Justice Minister is a matter for him. Those are operational matters and not for me to answer from here.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Secretary of State for the statement that he has unfortunately had to make today. Our thoughts are with the Kerr family, the policing family and all those for whom the awful events of the weekend have been a dreadful reminder of their own trauma. The Secretary of State rightly commended the strength of political unity. Does he agree that it is hugely important, in the context of the election campaign, that all parties make it clear that there is no political difficulty or difference that these terrorists can exploit for their warped agenda? Does he agree that Constable Kerr was a patriot and that those who killed him were not? He was a patriot who was honouring his country in the service of all in his community.

Owen Paterson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I entirely endorse his comments about Constable Kerr, who could have pursued another career. He had a university degree in a totally separate subject but he decided to work in his community for the benefit of the community. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the behaviour of local politicians and local parties. The election campaign of the next few weeks is a glorious opportunity to rebut everything that these violent terrorists stand for. The election should be entirely about day-to-day issues. As I have said, I encourage every voter to participate and turn out. I encourage them to put these people in their place and show them that they have absolutely no representation or support anywhere in the community in Northern Ireland.

David Winnick: If the Provisional IRA could not achieve its aims over 30 years, despite all the crimes and atrocities it committed, why should the dissident republicans believe they can succeed?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. To put it bluntly, they will not succeed, but one has to ask what on earth they think they achieved by ending this bright young man’s career just as it began.

David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State welcome the strong support from Secretary of State Clinton in her condemnation of this brutal murder? Will he assure the people of America that there is no support in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, in the Republic or in the American Government for these brutal murderers who should be brought to justice as a matter of urgency?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have had unstinting support from both parties in Washington and I was touched that Hillary Clinton, given everything else that is going on in the world, put out a very strong statement condemning this “cowardly act”, which she said represented the “failures of the past”. She said that the perpetrators’ actions
	“run counter to the achievements, aspirations and collective will of the people of Northern Ireland”.
	I spoke to Congressman King last night, who is the chairman of the Friends of Ireland group. He, too, has put out an extremely strong statement, which we all welcome.

State Pension Reform

Steve Webb: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a short statement about state pensions. The coalition has already taken steps to support current pensioners by reintroducing the earnings link for the basic state pension. Indeed, we went one step further with our triple guarantee, which will mean that a pensioner retiring today can expect to receive about £15,000 more in basic pension over the life of their retirement. However, the pensioners of tomorrow face a new landscape. With longevity continuing to increase, future pensioners can expect to work for longer and they may not have the same levels of housing equity. They are less likely to have the certainty of a final salary pension and from 2012 we will introduce a new system of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions.
	Today, the Government are publishing a consultation document, which looks at whether the existing pensions system is suitable for meeting the challenges of the future. This Green Paper marks the next step in the coalition’s plan to create a system that is fair and simple for pensioners and that rewards those people who do the right thing and take responsibility for their future. It is right that we ask people to take responsibility for their retirement by saving over the course of their working lives, but it is also right that the Government should play their part by ensuring that we support those who make the right choices for their future and those of their families.
	If we want to encourage pension saving, the key is getting the state pension system right. The current system has been in a sort of permanent evolution for decades, which means that planning for retirement is fiendishly complex. The Green Paper sets out two options for reform, neither of which involves spending more money on future pensioners than has already been forecast through the existing system. The key is to spend the money we have better. The objective is clear: to move to a simple, contributory state pension system that provides flat-rate support above the level of the means-tested guarantee credit, which would be easy to understand, efficient to deliver and provide a firm foundation for further saving.
	The first option involves bringing forward existing reforms so that the state pension would evolve into a two-tier, flat rate system more quickly. The second, more radical, option is to move to a single-tier state pension. Both options are for future pensioners; pensioners who have already reached state pension age by the date of reform would not be affected, so no existing recipient of state pension would see their income reduced. For future pensioners, we would also continue to honour the contributions that people have built up to the date of reform. The option of a single-tier state pension would be a marked improvement on the current system, which is dogged by complexity and confusion. During the transition, many would receive their single-tier pension from a combination of their state and contracted-out scheme, as happens now, which means that they would receive less than the currently estimated £140 directly from their state pension.
	Let me give hon. Members an idea of just how confusing the present UK pension system is for the average person. The Pensions Commission has described it as one of the most complex in the world and a departmental survey on attitudes to pensions found that barely one in four people agreed that
	“they knew enough about pensions to decide with confidence about how to save for retirement.”
	Worse still, few people have a clear idea of what their state pension will be worth when they retire. Critically, the current system actually discourages some people from putting anything aside; the mass reliance on means-tested benefits leaves people unsure whether they will benefit from the savings they make. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions with employer contributions are due to start from next year, so we need to give people more clarity and certainty about what they will get from the state, thereby giving them a firm foundation for decisions about saving to fund their retirement.
	For women, the low-paid and the self-employed, the state pension system can produce unfair outcomes. As a result, people in those broad groups are far more likely to have poorer state pensions, which we will address. Under a single-tier state pension, for example, the self-employed would be able to build up as good a state pension as anyone else. They stand to gain around £1.40 a week of state pension for every year of national insurance contributions that they make, up to a maximum of 30 years. That could provide them with a state pension of around £140 a week, instead of the current rate of £97. Currently, less than 50% of women in their late 40s or early 50s are expected to get £140 a week from state pension income in retirement. Our proposals would address that. We are clear that reform on this scale could take many years to deliver, but the prize—providing clarity to savers and all those planning for their retirement —is a real one.
	There are two other, related issues. The Government recognise that means-tested benefits play an important role in targeting support where it is needed most and provide an essential safety net for the most vulnerable. However, means-tested benefits add to complexity and can be a real disincentive to saving for many people. Therefore, in addition to consulting on the two state pension options that I have briefly mentioned, the Green Paper seeks views on whether the current system of means-tested support would best meet the needs of future pensioners. On the state pension age, as life expectancy projections continue to be revised upwards, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the pensions system is sustainable and that the costs of increasing longevity are shared fairly between the generations. Therefore, as well as reforms to the state pension, we are consulting on the most appropriate mechanism for determining future changes to the state pension age.
	As the coalition addresses those issues, I shall be seeking as many views and contributions to the debate as possible. We shall be asking all interested parties—hon. Members, employers, pension providers, members of the public and specialists—to work with us to ensure that we deliver the state pension system that the people of this country deserve. If we want future generations to take responsibility for their retirement, we need to deliver a simpler and fairer state pension system that acts as a foundation for people to build up to a decent income in retirement. Fairer, simpler systems that reward
	people who do the right thing and take personal responsibility for themselves and their families—these are precisely the same themes that run through the welfare reforms being implemented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, from the universal credit to the Work programme.
	With the Welfare Reform Bill we have set out how the coalition will transform working-age benefits to make work pay and tackle the root causes of poverty and welfare dependency, but we also need people to save for their retirement. We need automatic enrolment and employer contributions to work. With today’s Green Paper we are setting out how we plan to transform the pensions system and create a simple, decent state pension that is easy to understand and efficient to administer. We need to ensure that saving for the future pays. I am proud to be part of this bold, reforming agenda. Today’s Green Paper is a step on the road to a radical reform of the state pension system, and I commend this paper to the House.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement—half an hour before he got to his feet. Given that the pensions Minister and the Secretary of State chose to announce the most positive elements of the Green Paper to the media over the weekend, I cannot help feeling that I am the only person who still has not seen it. Today we have heard proposals that include a universal flat-rate pension and further increases in the state pension age. Although in principle the move to a more simplified system is welcome, it raises a number of important questions.
	The Labour Government recognised the importance of pension reform. Labour made great inroads, particularly in lifting more than 1 million pensioners out of poverty and in recognising the vital role that people—mainly women—play as carers. The Labour Government reduced the number of years needed to qualify for a basic state pension to 30, helping women, while more generous credits for carers have ensured that more people are now entitled to a higher level of the state second pension. Labour also introduced automatic enrolment, helping the up to 8 million people who previously did not put money aside for their pensions to save. Although we welcome the fact that the Government are continuing with automatic enrolment, we disagree with the watering down of some of those proposals.
	Previous changes to the state pension mean that, based on new accrual rates and assuming 30 years of national insurance contributions or caring credits, a low-paid woman or someone in a caring role would be entitled to a basic state pension of £102.15 a week, plus £43.50 in the state second pension, totalling £145.65 a week, or more if she had 40 years of contributions. The figure of £140 a week that the Minister set out must be seen in that context. Pensioners and families must assess the proposals carefully to ensure that they are not worse off than they would have been under Labour’s plans. Can the Minister give some reassurances about the other benefits that pensioners receive, including free TV licences, prescriptions, eye tests, support with council tax, bus passes, the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments? In the Budget we saw a cut in the winter fuel allowance, despite rising energy prices and two successive cold winters. Will the Minister explain how
	he will account for those benefits in the new system, or say whether we will see further cuts, by stealth or otherwise?
	I have a few brief questions about affordability and fairness. The Chancellor announced in his Budget that the reforms would cost no more than the current system, yet the Pensions Policy Institute estimates that a flat-rate pension at a guaranteed credit level will cost almost 1% of GDP after 13 years. That must imply that although some will be better off under the Government’s plans, some will also be worse off. The Minister has spoken eloquently about the potential winners, but the distributional impacts are critical, so will he confirm who will be worse off under the new proposed system?
	On fairness, the Minister has said that accrued rights will be protected. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, but he said the same about the switch in uprating from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. However, in this instance I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Can he guarantee that someone in their 50s who has worked all their life on average earnings and has never contracted out of the state second pension will still be entitled to a more generous state pension than someone who has not paid in? If not, does he think it fair that those contracting out and getting defined benefit pensions in retirement could receive the same state pension as their counterparts who have paid full national insurance contributions throughout their careers? If those who have paid in get more than £140, will the change really be cost-neutral? If some will get less than £140 based on lower contributions, will the Minister ensure that no one falls below the guaranteed credit level? In what way can that be called a flat-rate pension?
	The Government’s proposals could have serious implications for the future of defined benefit schemes, because they will end the rebate for those on DB schemes. Given the importance of occupational savings for retirement income, as the Minister said, what are his estimates of the generosity of DB schemes—and, indeed, their overall survival—given the changes? The changes in contracting-out touch on a wider point. The post-world war welfare state is based on the contributory principle. We welcome the news that any new flat-rate system will keep contributions at their core, and that anyone with 30 years’ national insurance contributions will be entitled to the newly formulated pension. However, given the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government intend to merge tax and national insurance, will the Minister explain how the contributory principle will work in practice if that merger takes place? Will he also give a reassurance that taxes will not go up for pensioners, who of course do not pay national insurance?
	The other, less briefed elements of today’s Green Paper include the automatic mechanism for increasing the state pension age to make future increases fair and smooth, with time for people to plan. The move comes too late for the 500,000 women who will have to wait a year longer before they receive their state pension and the 33,000 women who will have to wait exactly two years before receiving their state pension. Does the Minister now recognise that the accelerated timetable for the state pension age for women in their 50s does not spread the cost fairly or, with just five years’ notice, leave enough time to prepare?
	To conclude, the Green Paper does nothing for today’s pensioners, because a flat-rate pension will be for only new pensioners. Today’s pensioners are suffering at the
	hands of this Government, with an increase in VAT to 20%, which sees pensioners worse off by £200 a year, low savings rates and a £100 cut in the winter fuel allowance. Although a flat-rate pension of £140 sounds good in theory, the Chancellor says that there is no new money, so who will lose out? It is quite likely to be families on average earnings, or just a bit more, who have worked hard and brought up a family, paying their full national insurance contributions. Some people will be worse off under the reforms, yet the Government want to talk about only the winners. In the final chapter of the review, the Government suggested that a crude formula could be used for uprating the state pension age. They have already hit women in their late 50s with a two-year increase in their state pension age; now they want to use a formula that pays no attention to health in later life, so we will all be waiting longer and longer to get our pensions.
	We welcome the intent behind today’s Green Paper. We want a more progressive and less complicated system, but I am yet to be convinced that today’s Green Paper will achieve that.

Steve Webb: I did write the hon. Lady’s words down—in principle, she welcomed the Green Paper, so I am grateful for her warm comments about our proposals. She asked a number of specific questions, and I shall try to respond to them.
	The hon. Lady seemed to imply that women would get £145 anyway, so wondered why we needed to do anything. That, however, is decades away. Equality between men and women in the state pension system is decades away, and we think that is too slow. Many women who did their child rearing in the ’80s and ’90s got no state second pension protection because it did not exist at that time. They will be retiring over the coming years and we are now bringing forward that protection for them. We do not want to wait 20 years for equality.
	The hon. Lady asked an important question about passported benefits and we will need to consider the implications of these changes for those benefits. She had the cheek to suggest that the winter fuel payment had been cut in comparison with what she would have provided if she were in office. She will be well aware that we are sticking precisely to the budgets that her right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote. He will know perfectly well how much he put aside for the winter fuel payments, and we are doing exactly what he planned.
	The hon. Lady asked about the Pensions Policy Institute and its estimate that a £140 flat-rate pension would cost 1% of gross domestic product. What she may have misunderstood from the report is that the question it asked was what it would cost if that amount were paid to everybody. That is where its figure came from. We are saying that we will create this for new pensioners, because new pensioners face a new world in which they will work longer, retire later and have fewer final salary pension schemes, so we need a system that is fit for them.
	The hon. Lady sought reassurance on two points and the answer is yes to both of them. We will honour past service and we will make an adjustment, as I said in my statement, for contracted-out periods.
	The hon. Lady asked about the future of final salary pension schemes after 13 years of decline under Labour. She will be pleased to know that the National Association
	of Pension Funds—the trade body for company pensions —welcomes these reforms and supports them, but we are in dialogue with those operating large final salary pension schemes to discuss how these changes will impact on them and how we can work with them to move towards the sort of simpler scheme that they and we want to see.
	The hon. Lady asked about merging what the Chancellor referred to as the operation of the tax and national insurance system, which is certainly at an exploratory stage, but he has made it clear that pensions will be protected under these changes and that the contributory principle will remain.
	Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the mechanism for raising the state pension age. She referred to a crude formula, but there are options in the Green Paper. One is to have an automatic mechanism for raising the pension age as longevity increases; the other is to adopt a more nuanced approach to take account of a range of factors. We would welcome feedback on that.
	Overall, I think the hon. Lady welcomed our proposals, particularly the fact that they will benefit women and self-employed people and will lead to a fairer system. She said that she wanted to see a fairer system; in office, the Labour Government never delivered one, but through this Green Paper, we will.

Oliver Heald: In welcoming the statement and the Green Paper, I congratulate the Minister on achieving a long-held ambition in the pensions world of creating much more certainty and transparency about the state pension system so as to encourage saving in the longer term, as well as on helping the more vulnerable groups he mentioned, such as women, who will get help that much earlier. Will he say more about the time scale? He talked about the long distance we still have to go before achieving justice for women, so what improvement will these changes bring and what is the Minister’s time scale?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings his great knowledge of these issues to the House and to the Select Committee of which he is a member. As he says, we need a simpler system. He will appreciate that these things take time; we will need to consult and then respond. In due course, we hope to legislate to re-programme the computers and so forth. As the Chancellor said, we are talking about some years to implement the reforms, but we are clearly keen to move forward as fast as we possibly can.

Anne Begg: I was listening hard to the Minister’s reply to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and I noticed that he provided no examples, in response to her request, of those who would be worse off as a result of these changes. There must be some losers. Presumably, they will include the group who enjoy pension credit now, but have not paid enough contributions to justify the new flat-rate pension. What will happen to that group? As for women, surely if they have not made the contributions, they will not be any better off than they are now.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Select Committee Chair for her questions. To be clear on the role of pension credit, we envisage that there will have to be a
	safety net under any system, and the Green Paper provides for consultation about what exactly that might look like. There will still be a guaranteed credit type system—a floor below which people cannot fall. In a single-tier pension world, the savings credit would no longer be necessary for new pensioners. In other words, the savings credit was invented by the previous Government to deal with the fact that 100% marginal tax rates were paid on any saving. Because we are not doing that any more, we will not need the savings credit for new pensioners, which helps to pay for the reform. It is less means-testing, more universal pension.
	The hon. Lady rightly mentions the position of women and my point is that women under the current system, who often did their child rearing before the state second pension was introduced, have no protection at all, whereas they have basic pension protection. Under a single-tier world, they get protection at the full rate, so they will benefit from the reforms we are introducing.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has not only this very month introduced the link between pensions and earnings, for which pensioners have been calling for years, but now makes a clear bid to be the most popular Pensions Minister for decades, in announcing the option of the citizens pension for which he and I have campaigned for ever. It is clearly fairer, simpler and particularly helpful to women and the self-employed. I urge my hon. Friend to be as bold and reforming as he suggests option 2 would allow. I urge him to go fully through the consultation process, but when midsummer’s day arrives—the last day of the consultation—I urge him to go for the single tier state pension so that this Government’s legacy for pensioners will be as radical in this century as the legacy of Lloyd George and Beveridge was for pensioners in the last.

Steve Webb: My right hon. Friend puts me on the spot, but I am glad to respond positively. I have noted his comments down as being the first response to my consultation, making it 1-0 for the single-tier option—I will keep score as we go. He is right that the restoration of the earnings link after 30 years of breaking it is an historic event, although it has been rather overshadowed by other events in the world. We think someone retiring this year will, over the years, get an extra £15,000 in basic state pension through the restoration of the link. That is a real firm foundation for today’s pensioners as well as reform for tomorrow’s. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend in respect of the liberal heritage and to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for their encouragement for the proposal to move forward.

Malcolm Wicks: It is humbling to follow a question from a “for ever” Member of Parliament.
	May I ask about the mechanism for determining future changes to state pension age? Could this mechanism please allow for occupational and social class differences in terms of life expectancy? If we look at men who work in what are called routine occupations, such as van drivers, cleaners and labourers, we see that almost a fifth of them—19%, I believe—die before they receive
	the state pension at 65. If we keep raising the state pension age without allowing for those people who have been working since they were 15 or 16, we will certainly bring insensitivity into the system.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who brings great knowledge of these issues to the House. He raises a vital point. Although it is true that life expectancy across the social classes has been improving, which is entirely to be welcomed, there are still very significant differences. One suggested option in the Green Paper is that the review mechanism should take account of a wide range of factors of the very sort that he mentioned. It is possible to have a too formulaic or automatic approach, but the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Chancellor referred in the Budget to a “more automatic” approach, taking systematic account of increases in life expectancy, but potentially of other factors such as those that he mentioned.

Harriett Baldwin: In welcoming the Green Paper and particularly the emphasis it places on removing means-testing as a deterrent to saving, will the Minister confirm how he intends to treat caring responsibilities and their role in contributing towards the build-up of a pension?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I know of the expertise she brings to the Select Committee on these issues. We propose that bringing up the next generation or caring for an elderly relative will be valued by society just as much as a high-paid job. A year will be a year will be a year. If someone is contributing to society in that way or in paid work or in other ways, it will bring them one thirtieth of a single state pension. We think that is a big step in the right direction, which will be widely welcomed around the House.

Nigel Dodds: We welcome the Green Paper and the consultation that will ensue. We agree that moving away from means-testing and complexity towards a universal flat-rate pension is greatly to be welcomed. The Minister says that this will not entail spending any more money. Given that so many pensioners today do not claim all the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled—this is a big factor in these reforms and should again be welcomed—does it not mean that more money will need to be spent to make up for the fact that people do not claim? If so, will the Minister guarantee that that money will be provided?

Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important point, namely that under the current system many people are entitled to top-ups and do not claim them, whereas pretty much everyone claims the state pension. The new system will guarantee that a great many people will live clear of the poverty line for the first time. As the right hon. Gentleman says, a price tag is attached, and we have factored that into our costings. Although the prospective state pensions of the very highest earners will be lower than they would otherwise have been, many lower earners and people who would not otherwise have taken up their entitlement to pension credit will be in a better position, and we consider that to be a fairer system overall.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What the Minister has announced will be enormously welcome in my constituency. I know from correspondence with my constituents that they will be particularly interested in the raising of the state pension age, because they want a degree of certainty about when they can expect to retire. I urge the Minister to provide that certainty as rapidly as possible.

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend says, people want certainty about the future. We have said that we must move rapidly in respect of those reaching the age of 66. However, the new mechanism is designed not just to make changes more automatic, but to provide notice periods. Young people will not have that certainty, because life expectancy is always changing, but as people approach the state pension age, we want to be able to give them more certainty. That is part of our plans.

Frank Field: It is difficult to think of any statement that could be more important than one that commits a Government to paying a state pension above means-tested assistance level. The importance of this statement—which I welcome—stems from the fact that the income of many pensioners is below that level. Even if we take into account those who do not claim means-tested help, a large price tag will be attached to this reform. Will the Minister consider the contribution made by taxpayers through pension tax relief, which favours the wealthy over those who earn least, as one way of financing it?

Steve Webb: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the proposed system. It will be financed on a cost-neutral basis within the system: we will spend less money on means-testing and, for instance, savings credit, we will withdraw some of the very small payments that we currently make to people who do not even live in this country, and we will remove some of the highest accruals for the highest earners. We therefore do not need to involve tax relief. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have refined the previous Government’s plans, so tax relief will be less concentrated on the highest earners, but we have no further plans to change tax relief.

Paul Uppal: It is always an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who invariably speaks a great deal of common sense on these issues.
	I thank the Minister for publishing the Green Paper, which, along with the introduction of universal credit, constitutes a seminal reform. We in the Government parties are sending the message that it always pays to work and it always pays to save. We are taking radical steps in regard to the choices that we give pensioners on annuities; may I ask the Minister to continue that work? After all, we are talking about the individual savings of pensioners who have worked all their lives.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a clear link between the major reforms that the Department is introducing for people of working age and those that it is introducing for those who will reach pension age in the future. “It pays to work” and “it pays to save” must be the right combination.
	My hon. Friend asked about pensioners’ savings. In a world in which we will enrol people in workplace savings, we need them to be confident that they will be better off when they save, and that is one of the specific purposes of the reforms. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any further points, I will certainly respond to them.

Glenda Jackson: Given that the introduction of a single-tier pension will be available only to new pensioners, will the safety nets to which the Minister referred in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) include all the existing passported benefits, and will claimants still have to go through a means-tested system in order to obtain them?

Steve Webb: We are not changing the system for current pensioners at all. It will continue as previously budgeted. As for new pensioners, we need to think what paying a pension above the guarantee credit implies for passported benefits, and what sort of system we need. I should be interested to hear people’s ideas, because the issue is important. Hitherto, we have simply assumed that pension credit means poverty and that we must therefore make all the extra payments. We may need a more sophisticated system now, but the role of passported benefits is important, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing us with the rationale behind it. As he will know, people will want to establish whether the single tier really does offer the platform for fairness and adequacy that he has described. They will want clarity and confidence.
	The Minister mentioned the need for people to save money for their pensions. What consideration have he and Treasury Ministers given to their ability to afford that, given the hits that they are taking as a result of the withdrawal of some child benefit, the entry of more people into the 40% tax bracket, and the huge challenge posed by tuition fees?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about people’s ability to afford to save. One of the key aspects of automatic enrolment is the fact that an employee’s contribution will trigger an employer contribution of nearly as much, plus tax relief. If an employee contributes 4% of his salary, the employer’s contribution will raise that to 8%, so this is a very affordable form of saving. Of course we want to ensure that people who make such sacrifices in order to save will be better off as a result, and our reforms will make that outcome far more likely than it is at present.

Hywel Williams: Plaid Cymru has long campaigned for a living pension, and we welcome the Government’s single tier proposals. The current system does not ensure an adequate income for all pensioners. As Jackie Ashley wrote in today’s Guardian,
	“On this issue of complexity Labour in power got it wrong, and should admit it.”
	However, does the Minister accept that on the accelerated equalisation of state pension age, the Government are
	in some danger of getting it badly wrong for about half a million women in their late 50s? What assurances can he give about that?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing support for the proposal of the single tier on behalf of the Welsh nationalists. As for the issue of state pension ages, the Green Paper involves moves beyond the pension age of 66. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with in the Pensions Bill, which will be presented to this House shortly, but, beyond that, we are trying to establish a more automatic mechanism that takes account of changes in life expectancy and, perhaps, of other factors as well, such as notice periods—which is, I think, the issue that he has raised—in a more systematic way than we or other Governments have done so far.

Jim Shannon: There is some good stuff in what the Minister has said, but every week my office—and, probably, the office of every other Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom—receives queries about small works pensions. Although they amount to a pittance, they remove people’s eligibility for benefits. Will the Minister assure us that such people will not be disadvantaged?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A small occupational pension can make the difference between living in poverty and living with a bit of dignity. Hitherto, given the low state pension of £97 a week, the first £35 or so of company pension has tended to offset £35 of guarantee credit, so people have been no better off. Then the savings credit has come along and given them a bit back, and it is all fiendishly complicated. The beauty of the single tier is that people are above the guarantee credit level from pound one, so the works pension is theirs to keep on top. There is still a housing benefit system and so on, but in principle the works pension will be worth more than it is under the current system.

Luciana Berger: May I give the Minister a final opportunity to tell us who the losers will be from his plans for flat-rate pensions?

Steve Webb: I will have another go. We have made it clear that we are not spending more money overall, that there are significant gainers among women, the low paid and the self-employed, and that therefore, inevitably, some people who would have received higher state pensions under the current system will receive flat-rate pensions. Because the current system is earnings-related, the highest earners will tend to receive lower state pensions under this system. The Labour party used to support that sort of thing.

Points of Order

Alec Shelbrooke: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on how the House may properly engage with the public in the referendum on the alternative vote. Many of my constituents, and many Members of Parliament, have drawn my attention to the fact that a recent publication by the Yes campaign appears to be an official document drawn up by the local electoral service. It also appears that those who apply for a postal vote may well be entitled to vote in all the elections. How can we make people understand that this is nothing to do with the electoral service, and that they must apply for a different postal vote if they want to vote in the local elections?

Bernard Jenkin: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: I was going to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), but if the point of order from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) will help, I will take it.

Bernard Jenkin: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The leaflet in question uses local authority free post whether or not a person already has a postal vote, thereby adding to the costs authorities face for this referendum. How can the House engage in this matter and hold this disbursement of public money, which the Yes campaign is wasting, properly to account?

Lindsay Hoyle: That point has already been raised in the House. It is not a procedural point on which I can rule, but I suggest that it might be taken up with the Electoral Commission.

Tom Harris: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just over six weeks from now, East Coast trains will start operating on a new timetable. East Coast is wholly owned by the Government and many people who wish to travel will want to buy their tickets in advance in order to get the best possible fares. However, even though there are only six weeks to go until the timetable takes effect, East Coast has still not published it, so last week I tabled a named day question to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), asking when the timetable will be published. On Thursday, the Minister responded, saying that she will answer the question shortly. That is not an answer; that is a happy coincidence of ink patterns on a piece of paper. What is the point of named day questions if Ministers are allowed blatantly to ignore and disrespect Members and the procedures of this House?

Lindsay Hoyle: There are quite a few points in that point of order. The first of them is, to some degree at least, a matter for the Scottish Government. I cannot rule on the second point. Instead, it will need to be taken up with the Table Office, and I am sure the Member will do so on his way out, in order to ask about the progress of the answer to that question.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[14th Allotted Day]

Government Reductions in Policing

Lindsay Hoyle: I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the Association of Chief Police Officers’ statement that there will be 12,000 fewer police officers because of the Government’s cuts to central government funding for the police; considers that chief constables across England and Wales are being put in an impossible position by the Government’s 20 per cent. cut to central government funding; notes that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) said the police budget could be reduced ‘at best’ by 12 per cent. and that ‘a cut beyond 12 per cent. would almost certainly reduce police availability’; further notes that HMIC has said that 95 per cent. of police officers do not work in back office roles; regrets that because of the Government’s 20 per cent. cut frontline police officers are being lost in every region of England and in Wales; is deeply concerned by recent statements from police forces and authorities that show the level of cuts being forced upon them by the Government, amounting to 1,158 police officers in the South West, 1,428 police officers in the South East, 1,215 police officers in the East of England, 579 police officers in Wales, 783 police officers in the East Midlands, 1,573 police officers in the West Midlands, 573 in the North East, 3,175 in the North West, 1,242 in Yorkshire and the Humber and 1,200 in London; calls on the Government to think again; and rejects the cuts to frontline police officers the Government is forcing upon police forces.
	We come to this debate rather later than any of us had expected, and I congratulate those Members who have managed to sit through all four statements and an urgent question in order to be present for it.
	This debate offers a chance for the House to reflect on the full scale of the cuts in policing the Home Secretary agreed and announced last October, a chance for Members on both sides of the House to consider what this means for their constituents, and a chance to urge the Home Secretary to pause and think again, because if Government Ministers can do that for trees and for hospitals, then this is her moment. It is time the Government stopped to think about the damage they are doing to the nation’s policing before it is too late.

Tobias Ellwood: Does this debate also present the previous Administration with the chance to say sorry for the huge economic mess we were left in, which is why tough decisions are now having to be taken in policing and other areas?

Yvette Cooper: In fact, at the time of the election unemployment was falling, the economy was growing and borrowing was lower than expected, whereas nearly 12 months on we have seen borrowing come in higher than expected, unemployment continue to rise and growth stall. The hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, consider those points when he thinks about the impact these foolish decisions are having on public services.
	I was contacted last week by a local beat officer from the west midlands, and I want to read out what he said about the job he did:
	“When I arrived it was a run-down, deprived area frequented by pimps, prostitutes, druggies and drug dealers. By working with the community we were able to change it into an area where the residents were happy to walk the streets at all times of the day and night. Crime was reduced and the feel-good factor returned. The local community saw me every day. If I wasn’t there, they would phone me. I was able to rebuild trust and confidence in the police. I was the single point of reference for them.
	In 2010 I was awarded the ‘coppers’ copper award’ by the Police Federation…this spoke of my professionalism and dedication. Now I am being forced out and will not be replaced. Residents are up in arms and have even started a petition to keep me. These people know that in a very short space of time”
	their area
	“will return to what it used to be and they are frightened.
	I believe I am good value for money...My presence prevents crime and antisocial behaviour. It makes people feel good. I’m totally devastated to be leaving as I feel that I have a number of good years in front of me doing the job I’m good at. I took an oath in 1979 and have stuck to it. Ultimately the people who will suffer are the public.”
	Those are the words of one beat officer in the west midlands, who is at the sharp end. That is what it is really like on the front line of the Government’s 20% cuts in policing, and there is much more such evidence from across the country.

Claire Perry: One of the sharp-end decisions this Government have had to take is to deal with the economic legacy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) referred. Is the biggest Budget deficit in the developed world part of that golden economic legacy that the right hon. Lady believes her party left to our country and Government?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady chose not to comment on the more than 100 police officers being lost from the Wiltshire force, as well as the more than 100 support jobs being lost from that force. I look forward to seeing her put that in her leaflet for the next election. As I have already pointed out, at the time of the election borrowing was, in fact, lower than expected and unemployment was falling. By cutting too far, too fast, the hon. Lady’s party is going to make it harder to cut the deficit, with more people on the dole and more spent on unemployment benefit.
	From Nottinghamshire, another officer writes:
	“Since 2006 when I took this office road casualties have fallen by 33%...that’s saved over £90 million in costs...I haven’t achieved this by myself for sure but we’ve contributed massively to that effort and now they want to get rid of me.”
	Hampshire police have been forced to cut their domestic violence units. In Lancashire, they are reducing air-support cover. In Dorset, they are cutting traffic policing by 33%. In north Wales, they have cut back on the handlers and sniffer dogs for explosives. In the west midlands, neighbourhood policing teams are being lost.

Stephen Barclay: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to comment on the policing cuts in his area.

Stephen Barclay: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Under the 12% cuts she proposes, what does she consider to be the right ratio between the numbers of senior management staff and bobbies on the beat, whose comments she is quoting in her speech? Cambridgeshire police has a sergeant for every four constables, an inspector for every three sergeants, and a chief inspector or officer of more senior grade for every one-and-a-half inspectors. Does she consider that to be the right ratio between the number of senior police figures and those on the beat?

Yvette Cooper: Of course we want to see more police officers out on the beat, and, in fact, that was the consequence of the policies of the Labour Government over many years. We also believe it is right for forces to do everything they can to improve their efficiency and to make sure they are supporting officers. However, in force after force and area after area we are seeing police officers, not just police staff, being lost: 12,500 officers to go. These are not our figures; they are figures from the Association of Chief Police Officers and individual police forces and police authorities across the country. There will be 12,500 fewer officers and 15,000 fewer support staff. That is the equivalent of the combined police strength of Yorkshire and Humberside, or the equivalent of the forces of Durham, Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Surrey and Dorset combined.

Claire Perry: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Lady if she thinks it is really possible to make cuts of that scale to police forces and still have no impact on the front-line services that communities across the country receive.

Claire Perry: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way for a second time. I am very interested in the statistics she is quoting, and I ask her for the source of the data she just gave suggesting that 100 officers were going in Wiltshire, because I have very frequent conversations with the chief constable of Wiltshire, and that is not a number that either he or I would recognise. Please can she tell us the source of the data?

Yvette Cooper: All the figures we have seen and released have come either from chief constables, police forces or police authorities. That is also where the figures of 12,500 fewer officers and 15,000 fewer support staff have come from. I know that Ministers have repeatedly refused to acknowledge those figures, but I hope they will take the opportunity of today’s debate to admit that police officer posts are being cut across the country. That is what happens when you cut too far, too fast. Of course the police can make efficiency savings; they should strive to do more and do better, and should make savings in procurement, on overtime and by changing the way they do things. That does mean cuts to their budgets, but by forcing cuts of 20%, with the steepest cuts occurring in the first two years so that there is no time to adjust and plan, the Government have lost any sense of balance and any grip on the reality of what such cuts will mean for communities across the country.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is making a lot out of the issue of police numbers. What would she say to Chief Constable Peter Fahy from Greater Manchester, who in January said to the Home Affairs Committee:
	“The other issue has been political—if I can say it—almost an obsession with the number of police officers, which meant that we've kept that number artificially high. We have had lots of police officers doing administrative posts just to hit that number.”?

Yvette Cooper: As the Home Secretary will know, chief constables have been put in an impossible position. They are rightly trying to do everything they can to deliver strong policing within the budgets they have been given and to reassure the communities for which they have to provide services, but the rug is being pulled from underneath them. If the Home Secretary now believes that police numbers are artificially too high and higher than they ought to be, she is the first Conservative Home Secretary in history to say that the problem with the police force is that police numbers are too high.
	The right hon. Lady referred to chief constables. Chief Constable Steve Finnigan of the Lancashire constabulary, who is the ACPO lead on police performance management, was asked whether he would have to reduce front-line policing in order to meet the Government’s budget cuts. He replied: “I absolutely am.” He has also said:
	“Let me be really clear. With the scale of the cuts that we are experiencing…we can do an awful lot of work around the back office…but we cannot leave the front line untouched.”
	That is because of the scale of the cuts and it is what chief constables are saying across the country.

Mark Tami: Is my right hon. Friend not amazed that at a time when we are cutting front-line policing, the Government intend to spend more than £40 million electing police commissioners that nobody wants? The Government have failed to put forward an argument as to why they are required.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because that money could be spent on keeping some of the 2,000 police officers who have been told that they will be forced to take early retirement as a result of the scale of the cuts. Electing 43 police and crime commissioners seems to be the only crime policy that the Government have. They are electing 43 new politicians in place of the thousands of police officers across the country who are to go.

Angela Smith: Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable of South Yorkshire, has said that Government expectations of improving performance were
	“challenging if not unrealistic in the longer term.”
	Does that not demonstrate beyond doubt that the service will be damaged between now and 2015?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to mention the concerns of the chief constable of South Yorkshire. He is reported as having recently raised concerns about what would happen to crime in many areas as a result of the scale of the cuts in the Government’s plans. The cuts go way beyond the 12% that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said could be made through genuine
	efficiency savings over several years, and they go way beyond the 12% cuts that the previous Labour Home Secretary identified and promised to implement over a Parliament—they are more than 15% in real terms in the first two years alone. The Government are cutting more in the first two years than Labour proposed to cut over a Parliament.

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. Lady not feel any need to apologise for the state in which Labour left this country? We had the worst deficit in the G20—worse than Ireland and Greece. We are now trying to do something about it, but she criticises every saving. What is the matter with Labour? Do Labour Members not understand that everybody and every economic organisation across the world is saying that we need a deficit reduction package and that what she is saying is nonsense?

Yvette Cooper: Government Members have obviously been primed by the Whips today to join the debate but not make any points about policing. They are obviously afraid to discuss the consequences of the cuts for policing and crime in communities across the country, and they are starting to sound like a stuck record. They are cutting too far, too fast, and it is having serious consequences for our economy, the level of unemployment, and police forces. They are going too far, too fast, and communities will pay the price.
	The charge against the Home Secretary, as she sits in the dock aided and abetted by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, is serious. She is the first Conservative Home Secretary in history to champion cuts to the police as a way to cut crime. What is her defence? First, she tried to claim that she was not at the scene of the crime, and that it was the Chancellor who cut her budget and not her. She then tried to claim that no crime had been committed, saying
	“lower budgets do not automatically have to mean lower police numbers.”
	Faced with the incriminating evidence of 12,500 fewer police, she changed her story:
	“We have been absolutely clear about the need for forces to ensure that the cuts are made to the back office, procurement, IT provision and so forth.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 19.]
	Her accomplice, meanwhile, said that savings could all come from the back office and the newly defined “middle office”.
	The expert witnesses from HMIC have blown that defence away. Instead of proving that cuts could all be made from the back office, they showed that 95% of police officers do not work in the back office. Instead of identifying a wasteful middle office, they said that that office carried out 60% of intelligence support, included the CID specialist crime units, and worked on tackling hate crime, vice, drugs and burglary. Even the Conservative councillor who chairs the Norfolk police authority has switched sides to give evidence for the prosecution. He stated:
	“I have to fundamentally disagree with the Minister’s assertion that we can find further efficiencies in the so-called ‘back office’…you can’t take £24.5 million out of our annual spend and still deliver the policing service to the same current standards.”

Chuka Umunna: In my local area, the police tell me that their back office is already cut to the bone. We are reaching a point—[ Interruption. ] That is what I have been told. Government Members may laugh, but that is what police officers have told me. We now have the ridiculous situation of front-line police officers taking time to do things such as empty the bins in a police station in my constituency. That was done by the back office, but it is no longer a back-office function as the back office is not there. The police are spending time emptying bins rather than being on the street fighting crime. How on earth is that justifiable?

Yvette Cooper: That is a hugely important point, because the scale of the cuts to the back office is having an impact on the front line. The sheer scale and pace of the cuts that hon. Members are making and supporting are having an impact. Making the police implement those cuts so fast makes it hard for them to plan, make reforms and change services. Instead, they are having to make deep cuts that hit services as well.

David Hanson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last year, when I was the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, we proposed £1.5 billion-worth of cuts and the then Conservative Opposition did not vote against those cuts or propose the extra £1 billion that they are now taking out, and the Liberal Democrats asked for 3,000 more police officers on the beat? Will my right hon. Friend update us on where we are on that promise?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right. We had identified a series of areas where savings could be made while still protecting front-line services. It is true, as the lonely Liberal Democrat on the Benches today will concede, that the Liberal Democrats had called for 3,000 more police officers, rather than voting to cut 12,500 police officers in constituencies across the country.
	The Home Secretary has tried a final line of defence. She hopes that the Merseyside force will come to her rescue as a character witness. She claims that if every force improved its visibility as well as Merseyside has done, more officers would be available. We agree that forces should increase their visibility, as many started to do when we introduced neighbourhood policing, and that they should learn from the best. But Merseyside’s testimony does not help the Home Secretary’s case, because it is losing more than 800 police officers, along with an estimated 1,000 staff. Its evidence shows that, despite its good work, it is already being forced to make cuts in front-line services, including to officers in visible jobs, who are already losing their jobs, and it is also cutting the antisocial behaviour task force.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for being a little late arriving for the debate. Is she aware that the second phase of redundancies in the West Midlands police force will cost an extra £10 million a year over the next two to three years?

Yvette Cooper: I was not aware of the further plans in the West Midlands police force. It is certainly true that many of the cuts in police numbers cover only the first year or two, and many forces are concerned about the consequences in future years as well.

Luciana Berger: My right hon. Friend will know that Merseyside police force made the biggest efficiency savings in the country before it received its grant settlement. That means that 800 police officers and 1,200 police support staff will now not be employed, and we are still waiting to find out how many policy community support officers will lose their jobs. Is she as worried as I am that police officers in domestic violence units, undercover police units, child protection units and race hate crime units are no longer to be considered front-line police?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know from her constituency the impact that the cuts are having on communities across Merseyside. While Merseyside has certainly done excellent work in getting as many police on the beat as possible and in ensuring that its officers are as available as possible, as well as making very substantial efficiency savings, it is now being penalised. Its services are being hit, and it is the local communities in Merseyside that are paying the price. The truth is that the Home Secretary is making visibility more difficult to achieve in Merseyside, not easier.
	It is the same story in Warwickshire, where the force is having to take police officers off the front line to cover critical support jobs that have gone, and South Yorkshire’s chief constable has said:
	“A reduction in back officer support will put an increased burden on operational officers, detracting them from frontline duties.”
	HMIC said in July last year that
	“a cut beyond 12 per cent would almost certainly reduce police availability”.

Michael Ellis: Does the right hon. Lady accept that HMIC also said last year, in a report commissioned by her Government, that only 11% of police officers were available to the general public at any one time? Does she not accept that there are efficiencies that can properly be made, and that this Government are cutting forms and bureaucracy that have taken up hundreds of thousands of hours of police time? Those are the kind of efficiency savings that can be made.

Yvette Cooper: We have always said that efficiency savings can be made. That is why we set out 12% reductions, but HMIC said that
	“a cut beyond 12 per cent would almost certainly reduce police availability”.
	The hon. Gentleman also cited the HMIC figure on visibility, but he is misusing the figures. In fact, HMIC said in its most recent report that it is right that forces should try to increase visibility, but pointed out that policing is a 24/7 service. The report stated:
	“HMIC estimate that between five and six officers are needed in order to provide one on duty 24/7…This suggests that, overall, the police are operating at the upper end of the efficiency range.”
	That is not my conclusion, but that of the independent HMIC.
	Chief constables are being put in an impossible position. They are doing their best within their budgets to deliver strong policing and to reassure the public, but the rug is being pulled out from underneath them. Whichever way we look at it, the evidence from the police and the
	expert witnesses is clear. The sheer scale and pace of the cuts mean that front-line services, and not just front-line numbers, are being hit. The Home Secretary and her co-defendants can change their story as much as they like, but every claim collapses under interrogation. The evidence from the police and the expert witnesses is damning, and the mood among the jury, as Lord Ashcroft’s polling proves, is already hostile, even though the cuts have barely started to bite. It is little wonder that the Ministers are backing softer sentencing; they know that they are going to be found guilty as charged.
	Whatever Ministers say at the Dispatch Box, in their offices and in the TV studios, they are a long way from the reality in the police stations and out on the beat. They are out of touch. They think that if they talk fast enough and loudly enough in management-speak about efficiency, bureaucracy, visibility, availability, back office, middle office and even Middle Earth, it will somehow make the real cuts go away, but it will not. This is all a far cry from their pre-election promises. The Prime Minister promised that the front line would be protected. The Lib Dems wanted 3,000 more officers, not 12,000 fewer. Even the Policing Minister told his local paper, just a year before the election:
	“I will continue to press for more PCSOs and police officers”.
	So much for that, then.
	As for Ministers’ claims that there would be no link between the cuts in police numbers and crime, influential members of their own coalition see things rather differently. Before the election, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) said that
	“putting 2,700 more police on the beat in England and Wales will lead to 27,500 more arrests and an extra 24,500 crimes being solved.”
	I am not sure that I would sign up to his level of precision, but he made his point. And one prominent Tory Front Bencher said the following:
	“The case can certainly be made that the increase in police officers in the last few years has had a positive effect both on providing reassurance to the public and on reducing some crimes…I am making an argument in favour of an increase in police numbers”.—[Official Report, 3 May 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1671-73.]
	Who said that, in this House? The current Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
	Let us listen to the concerns from the top police. The South Yorkshire chief constable has warned of the impact of higher unemployment, shorter sentences, cuts in probation and cuts in police on increasing crime. The Kent chief constable has said that a 20% cut was
	“quite a significant drawback into police numbers, both civilian staff and police numbers, and clearly there’s a potential impact that crime will rise.”

Mark Reckless: I am a member of the Kent police authority, and the chief constable of Kent has also said that he sees this as an opportunity to deliver a more efficient and effective force. He is increasing the number of neighbourhood officers by more than 75%.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome anything that the Kent chief constable is able to do to support neighbourhood policing, but the hon. Gentleman will know that Kent police are having to lose more than 500 officers and about 1,000 support staff. That means that they will be under pressure in a number of different areas.
	What on earth has happened to the Conservative party? The traditional party of policing and crime is throwing it all away. They have left the Liberal Democrats in charge of policing powers and sentencing policy, and they have left the management consultants in charge of the police. They are taking serious risks with crime and communities as a result. Over the 13 years of a Labour Government, crime fell by more than 40%, but most of us think that it is still too high. We want it to come down further. But instead of building on our progress, the Government are putting it at risk.
	The Government’s amendment today
	“welcomes the Government’s comprehensive proposals to cut crime”,
	but what are those proposals? In 13 years of falling crime, Labour increased the number of police officers and got more of them on to the front line, increased the powers of the police through ASBOs and other measures, increased the use of CCTV and DNA, increased crime prevention through youth services and intensive family support, strengthened sentencing and, yes, sent more people to prison. What are this Government doing? They are making cuts in the number of police officers and cuts in the number on the front line. They are cutting the powers of the police and ending ASBOs. They are cutting the use of CCTV and DNA. They are cutting prevention, youth services and specialist family support. They are cutting sentencing, cutting prison places and cutting probation, all at the same time. They are increasing unemployment and child poverty, too. Those do not sound like crime-cutting proposals to me.
	The Government are whipping up a perfect storm. None of us knows when it will blow, but they should think again before it is too late. Let me say this to them: they used to be the party of law and order once. Not now.

Theresa May: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“welcomes the Government’s comprehensive proposals to cut crime and increase the democratic accountability of policing while dealing with the largest peacetime deficit in history; supports the Government’s determination to help the police make savings to protect frontline services; congratulates the police forces that are increasing the number of officers visible and available to the public; notes that the Opposition’s spending plans require reductions in police spending; and regrets its refusal to support sensible savings or to set out an alternative.”
	I want to start by saying that in this country we have the finest police in the world. The tragic events in Omagh at the weekend have yet again shown the bravery of police officers serving in all parts of the United Kingdom. They put their lives on the line day in, day out, and I am sure that the whole House will join with me in paying tribute to the courage, dedication and commitment of all our police officers.
	I am delighted that we are having this debate today. Of course, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) wanted to hold it last time there was an Opposition day, but she was overruled by the shadow Chancellor—not for the first time, I understand. From looking at the text of the Opposition motion and listening to the right hon. Lady’s
	speech, one might think that they had not planned to make any cuts to policing budgets, but in fact Labour’s overall spending plans involved £14 billion of cuts to Government spending this year, including cuts to the policing budget. The Opposition just will not tell Parliament, the police or the public how they would make them.

David Hanson: May I confirm that when I was police Minister last year we planned cuts of £1.5 billion? The difference is that her Government are implementing cuts of £2.5 billion and are front-loading them over the first two years.

Theresa May: I gently suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make an intervention it might help if he gets his facts right. He has the wrong figures. Indeed, I notice a difference between him and the shadow Home Secretary, who said she would make 12% cuts. The right hon. Gentleman talks about cuts of £1.5 billion—more like 15% or 16%. What we have done and what the Opposition have singularly failed to do is set out a detailed and comprehensive plan to free the police, give accountability back to the people, bring in real reforms and make real savings.
	We struck a tough but fair settlement for the police in the spending review. Let us look at the figures. In real terms, the average reduction in central Government funding for the police will be about 5.5% a year, but given that police pay constitutes 80% of all police revenue spending and the likelihood that police pay will be frozen for two years along with that of the rest of the public sector, the reductions in police force budgets will be less severe than the real-terms figures imply.
	In cash terms, the average reduction for forces’ grants will be 4% in the first year, 5% in the second, 2% in the third and 1% in the fourth. Again, that does not include the local council tax contribution, which on average makes up a quarter of all police funding. In fact, if we assume that the council tax precept rises in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s expectations, in cash terms the police face an average cut of 6% over four years. Those figures show that the reductions are challenging but achievable.

Stephen Twigg: Is the Home Secretary urging police authorities to increase council tax for policing?

Theresa May: No. I was merely pointing out the fact that the Opposition appear to keep forgetting, which is that police forces have two sources of funding: from central Government and from the precept.
	I am absolutely clear that such savings will be achieved only if we reform and modernise our police service, which Labour consistently dodged and ducked during its time in office. We should be absolutely clear that, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has admitted today, Labour would not have protected police budgets but would have had to make the same savings as we are.
	During the last general election campaign, the Labour Home Secretary was asked whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall under a Labour
	Government and his answer was no. Now, the right hon. Lady claims she would be able to protect police numbers. Despite Labour’s denials, we know the truth—they would have made cuts to the police budget, just as we are.

Tobias Ellwood: A theme is developing. A call is made for an Opposition day debate on one of the great offices of state and Labour Members come to the House, demanding that difficult decisions are overturned while completely forgetting why we must make those difficult decisions in the first place—[ Interruption. ] Aside from the cuts, one big issue that affected the police in Dorset was the amount of red tape, which meant that officers were spending only 14% of their time on the beat. Is that right? Can we not change it?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes two extremely important points. First, judging by the replies from the shadow Home Secretary to a number of interventions from my hon. Friends—as well as the noise just made by Labour Members from a sedentary position—all those on the Labour Benches fail to recognise the state in which they left this country’s economy, with the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. By the necessary measures we have taken to cut public spending, we have taken this country’s economy out of the danger zone. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about bureaucracy. Central to our reforms is the need to get central Government out of the way and to start trusting the police again.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary claimed that our plans would have been the same as hers. By what maths does she make 12% over a Parliament the same as 15% in the first two years and 20% over a Parliament, which is what she is doing?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is absolutely clear that if Labour had been in government, it would have made cuts. We are making cuts. My point was very simple: she is claiming today that it would have been possible for a Labour Government to have protected police numbers. It would not have been possible, as the last Labour Home Secretary admitted during the election campaign. The right hon. Lady must consider that very carefully.
	The one thing that the previous Labour Government failed to do was to address the bureaucracy that ties up our police officers in filling in forms rather than doing the job that they want to do and that the public want them to do out on the streets. Indeed, the former president of the Police Federation and the previous Government’s own police bureaucracy fighter, Jan Berry, said that as a result of their
	“diktats the service has been reduced to a bureaucratic, target-chasing, points-obsessed arm of Whitehall”.
	We have done away with the diktats, we have scrapped the central targets, and we are ripping up the red tape. Instead, we are putting our trust back in the police and we are making them accountable to the people who really matter—the public.

Angela Smith: On Friday, my constituent—a very senior officer in West Yorkshire police—came to see me at my surgery and asked me to put on the record in this debate his deeply rooted view that the Government’s police spending cuts will damage the service. What does the Home Secretary have to say to my constituent?

Theresa May: I would suggest that the hon. Lady says two things to her constituent. First, she should make it clear why the Government are having to make cuts in public spending—they are a result of the decisions taken by the previous Labour Government. Secondly, she should also make clear the commitment that Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison has given to what he calls the central drivers of the way in which West Yorkshire police will deal with the budget changes. He states that the first is that
	“local policing will not suffer, the sort of policing you see when you open your curtains and the emergency response of the police at the times when people are feeling vulnerable, under threat or have suffered some criminal act or tragedy.”
	On bureaucracy, we have scrapped the so-called policing pledge and done away with the last remaining national targets and we have replaced them with a single objective: to cut crime. We are scrapping the stop-and-account form, cutting the reporting requirements for stop and search, and restoring discretion over certain charging decisions to the police, and that is just the start.

David Wright: The right hon. Lady is obviously in touch with front-line police officers and they obviously correspond with her. How many front-line police officers have written to her or spoken to her to ask for the introduction of a police commissioner in their area?

Theresa May: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what front-line police officers are saying to me. When I visited the Nottinghamshire police force, I saw a police officer who said to me proudly that he had been out and had made an arrest that morning and that he had had to come back and spend several hours filling in forms when, to use his words, what he wanted to do was to get back out on the streets again.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary is continuing the work started by the previous Government on bureaucracy, but this Government have a more ambitious plan to change the landscape of policing. Does she not accept that the abolition of bodies such as the National Policing Improvement Agency will result in a greater cost to local police authorities and the new commissioners? They will now have to pay for things, such as the databases, that they used to get for free.

Theresa May: Yes, we are getting rid of the NPIA and we are considering a number of the functions that it carries out as well as where they should best and most appropriately sit and we will make an announcement in due course. Of course, the overall cost to the public purse of such things is not likely to change much because the functions undertaken by the NPIA have been funded by the public purse. But there will be a question over the extent to which some of those functions are appropriately carried on at the centre or whether they are carried out elsewhere, potentially more efficiently and with an improved service as a result of moving them elsewhere.

Jack Dromey: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: No. I shall make some more progress.
	I have made the point about the bureaucracy, but what we have done is just the start. Working with the police, we are looking at sweeping away a wide range of the red tape, bureaucracy and paperwork that get in the way of officers doing what they want to do—getting out on the streets and keeping us safe.

Yvette Cooper: What does the home Secretary say to the police and Warwickshire and South Yorkshire and the HMIC, who have all said that the scale of cuts means that police officers will be doing more bureaucracy and will be less available because of the scale of the cuts and the support staff who used to do those jobs being lost?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady just does not get the fact that this Government are getting rid of much of the bureaucracy that has been tying up the police in red tape and taking them off the job that they want to do—something that the previous Government singularly failed to do. I would have thought that Labour supported us in our efforts to get officers out from behind their desks and back on the streets, but when one of their several former shadow Home Secretaries was asked by the Home Affairs Committee:
	“Do you think it would be better if police spent more time on patrol than they do on paperwork?”,
	he replied:
	“I think that is too simplistic a question for me to give a sensible answer.”
	Perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to tell us whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that the police should be behind their desks, filling in forms, or does she agree with me that they should be out on the street, fighting crime?

Michael Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend note that Jan Berry, the former president of the Police Federation, wrote only recently that one third of all effort was being duplicated or in some way wasted, and therefore that considerable savings could be made by a reduction in bureaucracy? One third—engineered or duplicated.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important and valid point and an excellent contribution to the debate. It is exactly that point that was stopping the police doing the job they wanted to do.

Claire Perry: Does my right hon. Friend share my incredulity on listening to those on the Opposition Benches? One would think that there had been nothing left to do in terms of improving efficiency, but is the Home Secretary aware that each of the 43 police forces buys its own uniform and its own cars separately?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend also makes an important and valid point. I will come on to such issues in a few minutes.

Jack Dromey: rose —

Stephen McCabe: rose —

Theresa May: I will make some progress before I give way to any other interventions.
	Our reforms are also based on the premise that the police must be accountable not to civil servants in Whitehall, but to the communities that they serve. Last Thursday, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill completed its passage through the House. It is our hope that it will complete its passage through the Lords and receive Royal Assent in time for elections for police and crime commissioners to take place next year.
	During the Committee stage of the Bill, the Opposition helpfully conceded the principle that we need democratic reform in policing, but their idea is just to add elections on top of the existing ineffective structures by having elected police authority chairs, which would add to the costs without bringing any of the benefits. Under our proposals, police and crime commissioners will have the power to set the police budget, determine local policing priorities and hold their chief constables to account. If they do not cut crime and help keep their communities safe, they will face the ultimate sanction of rejection at the ballot box.
	However, slashing Labour’s bureaucracy and increasing accountability is not enough. The police will have to take their fair share of the cuts across Government to clear up Labour’s financial mess, so direct savings and efficiencies are also needed.

Jack Dromey: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. Last week five west midlands police officers with a total service of 163 years spoke out about the harm that will be done to the front line on which they have served all their life. If the Home Secretary wants to hear the voice of front-line police officers, will she agree to meet those five police officers?

Theresa May: I am very happy to visit police forces, as I do, to talk to police officers across the board, and to hear directly what they are saying. When I next make a trip to the West Midlands force, I am very happy for the hon. Gentleman to arrange for me to meet those five officers. I am sure I will be meeting other officers as well.
	It is important that we ensure that we make changes within our police force so that we have the police force that we need to face the 21st century, but it is also important that we make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively. Our starting point for savings is the report by HMIC, “Valuing the Police” which estimated that £1.15 billion per year could be saved if only the least efficient forces brought themselves up to the average level of efficiency.
	However, the fiscal deficit left by Labour is so dire that bringing all forces up to the average level is no longer enough—forces must go further. We must raise the performance of all our police forces up to the level not of the average, but of the most efficient forces. If forces improve productivity and adjust to the level of spend typical in the most efficient forces, we could add another £350 million to the £1.15 billion of savings that HMIC calculated.
	This sort of thing is already happening. In Suffolk and Norfolk the police forces are creating a shared service platform for their back-office support functions,
	saving around £10 million per year. In Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) who serves on the Kent police authority made clear, the police are streamlining and rationalising support services, enabling them to put more into the front line. The Kent force is also collaborating with Essex police to make savings and allow more resources to be devoted to the front line.
	In London the Metropolitan police are getting more officers to patrol alone, rather than in pairs, and are better matching resources to demand in neighbourhood policing, increasing officer availability to the public by 25%. In Gloucestershire the police are putting 15% more sergeants and constables into visible policing roles and increasing the numbers of officers on the beat, at the same time as they are making savings. These examples show that it can be done and it must be done.
	There were other aspects that were outside the remit of the HMIC report. I know that members of the Opposition Front-Bench team have not read everything that was in that report, so let me spell it out to them. HMIC did not look at the savings that could be made by joining up police procurement and IT, for example. Currently, the police have 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 forces, employing 5,000 staff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said, the police currently procure items from uniforms to helicopters in 43 different ways. That makes no sense.
	Working with the police, we have already secured their agreement that the right way forward is a national, joined-up approach, with better contracts, more joint purchasing, a smaller number of different IT systems and greater private sector involvement. With these changes we can save a further £350 million. Again, that is over and above the savings that HMIC identified.

Stephen McCabe: rose—

Theresa May: The other major item that HMIC did not look at was pay. In an organisation like the police, where £11 billion goes on pay, there is no question but that pay restraint and pay reform must form part of the package. That is why we believe, subject to any recommendations from the Police Negotiating Board, that there should be a two-year pay freeze in policing, just as there has been across the whole of the public sector. This would add at least another £350 million of savings to those calculated by HMIC.
	All these savings, together with those identified by HMIC, give us £2.2 billion of savings, just over the £2.1 billion reduction in central Government grant that must be made. And even that ignores the contribution from the local precept.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. The permanent secretary in her Department is before the Select Committee tomorrow and we will be asking her about procurement. I welcome what the right hon. Lady has said so far about centralising procurement, but is it not better for the Home Office to make recommendations on procurement across the 43 forces, rather than still to leave it to the forces to work out collaborations between themselves?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Our view is that it is important to get the balance right between what the centre does and what the local forces do. Of course we want to leave decision making with the local forces, but we are working with them and ensuring that they will collaborate on those aspects where it makes sense for them to do so in order to make the savings that enable them to reduce their budgets without affecting the front-line services that people want out there in the streets.
	No Home Secretary wants to freeze or cut police officers’ pay packages, but with Labour’s record budget deficit these are extraordinary circumstances. That is why I commissioned Tom Winsor to undertake the most comprehensive review of police pay and conditions in more than 30 years—not because I want to make savings for their own sake, but because I want to protect police jobs and keep officers on the streets. We are doing everything we can to minimise the effect of the necessary spending reductions on pay. I have spelt out savings today, but we cannot avoid the fact that changes to pay and conditions have to be part of the package.

Stephen McCabe: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has been very keen to intervene, so I will give way.

Stephen McCabe: The Home Secretary is very generous. Following her comment on pay and trying to protect the police from the worst effects of the cuts, does she accept Winsor’s own comment that 40% of officers stand to lose as much as £4,000 a year as a result of the proposals she is putting forward?

Theresa May: Tom Winsor did not say that. He indicated that a percentage of officers could lose funding as a result of his proposals, which are about putting increased pay to those officers who are in front-line service or who are using certain specialist skills in their work. I want action on pay to be as fair as possible. We are determined not only to cut out waste and inefficiency, but to ensure that pay recognises and rewards front-line service and allows chief officers to put in place modern management practices.
	The Opposition know that savings can and should be made by modernising police pay and conditions. Indeed, they have said so publicly. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), have both said that Labour planned savings in the police overtime budget, but when Tom Winsor proposed those savings they attacked them. I am sure that not only police officers and staff but the public would prefer us to look at pay and conditions rather than lose thousands of posts. Given that the Opposition do not support reform of pay and conditions, losing more posts is exactly what they would do.

Paul Blomfield: On the key issue of posts, the chief constable of South Yorkshire police, who has been mentioned a number of times in the debate, is facing a loss of 1,200 police and civilian posts. He is absolutely clear that there will be an enormous impact on front-line policing and has said that crime
	will rise in South Yorkshire. Given the Home Secretary’s concern that we should trust the police and their judgment, what would she say to him?

Theresa May: What I say to the hon. Gentleman is this: he is standing up saying that he wants to be able to save police jobs, so why have the Opposition singularly failed to support Tom Winsor’s proposals? Not only did they not support the proposals, but the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said that in commissioning Tom Winsor’s report I was picking a fight with the police. It is absolutely clear that there are chief constables out there who recognise the impact that this could have. The chief constable of Thames Valley has said, “Tom Winsor’s report on terms and conditions provide us with recommendations that could cut the size of our pay bill if they are implemented. This will allow us to reassess the job reductions we had planned for future years and maybe to retain greater number of officers and staff.”
	I have set out today that we have already identified savings over and above the reduction in central Government grant, so it is clear that savings can be made while front-line services are maintained and improved. The truth behind today’s debate is that the Labour party is engaged in opposition for opposition’s sake. They admit that there is a democratic deficit in policing but oppose our reforms to bring in democratic accountability. They said they would not be able to guarantee police numbers, but now they say that they would protect them. They say they would cut police spending, but now they oppose every single saving we have identified. They oppose a two-year pay freeze, meaning that their cuts would have to be deeper. They say that they would cut police overtime, but then they attack Tom Winsor when he proposes just that. They oppose reform of pay and conditions, meaning that under Labour more police jobs would have to go. This is not constructive opposition but shameless opportunism, and the public know it.
	Only one side of the House has a clear plan to reform the police and cut crime. We are slashing bureaucracy, restoring discretion, increasing efficiency, giving power back to the people and, most of all, freeing the police to fight crime. Every one of those measures is opposed by the Labour party, which is why their motion deserves to fail.

Alun Michael: I will start by repeating the declaration I make when policing issues come up in the Home Affairs Committee, which is that my oldest son is chief executive of the North Wales police authority.
	I am amazed by the sheer complacency of the Home Secretary’s speech. She seems to have just landed from another planet. Given that we are experiencing the largest annual fall in police officer strength since figures were first published for March 1978—I depend on the House of Commons Library for that figure—it is obvious that the cuts are going too far, too deep and are happening too fast. I do not rely only on statistics to know that; I need only speak with senior police officers, experienced people who do not want to leave the police, who work on the streets in my constituency—colleagues can do the same in their constituencies—to know that we are losing people whose experience, knowledge and dedication are invaluable in the fight against crime.
	The Home Secretary caricatured the position of the Opposition and previous Ministers, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). The cuts that the Government propose are roughly double the level that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) described as painful but possible when he was Home Secretary. The fact that the cuts are front-loaded makes the pain even worse.
	I do not blame the Policing Minister, because this is driven by a Chancellor and a Prime Minister who are on the rampage with economic cuts that they clearly believe in and that go beyond what is economically necessary. The Home Secretary should have done better in negotiations and given the Policing Minister the tools that are necessary to do his job well. It is a fascinating and challenging role, as some of us know from our time in that job. The police need the tools to do the job. I want to inject some realism into the debate about what we expect from the police and then focus on what we mean by front-line policing.
	In recent months, the Home Secretary has muddled the issues by talking so much about visible policing, as if the test is whether each of us can see a couple of Dixon-style cops strolling up our streets with measured tread. Visibility can mean different things to different people, so let us look at look at some examples. I will start with my own city of Cardiff. Pretty much all the police officers were pulled off the streets across south Wales on 5 June last year because the English Defence League made an unwelcome and unpleasant foray into south Wales. Inevitably, and rightly, I was there. People from a wide range of political and community groups marched as Unite Against Fascism. It was a massive and peaceful presence on our streets rejecting the bile and hatred of the EDL. That was a sort of inverse bonus for the city, because the police already had to cope with the Wales v. South Africa rugby game at the Millennium stadium. It was rather an irony that I had to depend for updates via text messages from my daughter, who was watching the match on television in Cape Town, because I was on the streets instead of at the game. On the same afternoon, the West Indies cricket team was playing against the England and Wales cricket team at Sophia gardens—it is called the England and Wales team when it is not doing very well, but the England team when it is doing well. The Stereophonics were in concert at Cardiff city stadium at the same time.
	The police and the organisers of Unite Against Fascism and of the sporting events worked very hard to make it a peaceful day, and apart from a few idiots it went well. That was greatly to the credit of South Wales police, who took all necessary precautions. However, they could not be very visible in other parts of south Wales on such a day. It is challenging to police a successful capital city.
	Despite such challenges, we have seen a major reduction in crime in Cardiff and across the South Wales police force area. Crime figures show that for 2009-10, crime overall fell by 11.7%, compared to 2008-09. More than 13,000 fewer people became victims of crimes such as burglary and vehicle crime. Robbery was down a massive 27%, with South Wales police the second most improved force in England and Wales.
	That is not just down to the police; crime and disorder partnerships have helped, particularly through the violence reduction project in Cardiff, led by a medic, Professor
	Jonathan Shepherd. Violence resulting in a victim needing treatment at an accident and emergency unit is down by more than 40% in Cardiff, so the reduction is not just down to the police, but that partnership approach cannot work without the police. Is that front-line work? Is it visible policing? The answer to both questions must be no, unless we distort the words far beyond their normal, common-sense meaning.
	Let me give some other examples. First, it is vital that police officers do undercover work and work internationally to counter terrorism. Preventing an explosion does not get the headlines commanded by the sort of bombs that went off in London in July 2005, but that is exactly why it is important for such quiet but effective work to go on year in, year out.
	Secondly, there is the need to combat organised crime: those who traffic drugs, people and human misery. Again, that is well organised criminal activity and international in scale, as some of us saw when we visited Turkey with the Home Affairs Committee a few weeks ago.
	Thirdly, there is internet-related crime, which includes fraud on a massive scale and serious and well-organised child abuse.

Mark Tami: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government deride the work of so-called back-room staff? What does he think it does to the morale of such people?

Alun Michael: Absolutely. Often, it is not very pleasant work. It is painstaking and time-consuming and requires a great deal of commitment, and often people put themselves in danger by undertaking such not very visible activity.
	In each of the three areas that I have just mentioned, success commands little publicity. A day’s report of convictions is the best that they can expect, and that is trumped by the drip-feed of facts and fears as the media quite rightly report the crimes and warn us of the dangers. That is inevitable, because until a case is brought to court, publicity might undermine it, and that is a risk which cannot be taken. It means, however, that the public demand for reassurance and safety involves effectiveness, not just visibility. Success on its own does not give reassurance.
	There is an issue of confidence, but crime is down. I have referred to the massive drop in violent crime in Cardiff, as measured by the number of people who need emergency treatment, but people do not feel safe. They worry about neighbourhood nuisance, graffiti and rudeness as much as about murder and terrorism, and that is why police accountability is challenging and why Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was right to send a message to the Home Secretary last week, defining the front line as a complex and challenging place.
	That report itself, however, raises some serious issues, because the four categories of police work as set out in the report—visible, specialist, middle office and back office—do not include the strategic partnership work to which I referred earlier, and it is not clear that the report includes the other examples that I have given either.
	I was a member of the Justice Committee when it produced its report on justice reinvestment. That report
	points out that many of the services that can make an impact on cutting crime depend on resources outside the criminal justice system: mental health, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, skills, employment, housing and personal relationships. Harnessing those resources, however, requires greater engagement by the police, not less, so forcing the police to withdraw from such teamwork will lead to long-term costs, rather than to savings.
	That is why I am sceptical of the HMIC report. It fails to refer to the words of Sir Robert Peel, stating that the purpose of policing is to prevent and reduce crime, words that were quoted by the Policing Minister when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and in a number of other contexts. I applaud him for quoting that as the prime purpose of the police, but nowhere in the HMIC report does it refer to the work of crime reduction partnerships or to any findings from the Justice Committee’s report.
	A time of financial constraint is the right time to be innovative and strategic and to go back to basic questions such as, “What is this all for?” The HMIC report does not do that. At the end of the day, cutting bureaucracy is indeed a worthy objective, but the Home Secretary will find that it is not as easy as she thinks; many previous Ministers have been dedicated to cutting bureaucracy. Increasing the visibility of the police, solving more crime, arresting more offenders and succeeding in a higher proportion of prosecutions are also worthy objectives, but they are means to an end, not an end in themselves, and that is why we need to spell out the danger of the cuts that go too deep, too fast and too far.
	Several people have quoted the chief constable of the South Yorkshire force. I could quote any number of chief constables, but I will quote Meredydd Hughes, because I remember him as an effective front-line police officer in Llanrumney in my constituency earlier in his career. He said that the cuts questioned the sustainability of unprecedented reductions in crime over the last 15 years, and let us not forget how successful the previous Government were in driving down crime. He also said:
	“A reduction in back office support will put an increased burden on operational officers detracting them from front-line duties.”
	But, above all, he said:
	“What is clear is that we will be unable to continue to provide the level of service that we do today in such areas as neighbourhood policing within diversionary and problem solving activities.”
	I worry that the HMIC report does not say enough about diversion, prevention, crime reduction or problem-solving activities. They seem to have fallen outside the four categories that it chose, and we need to look at that report and its definition with very great care.

Paul Farrelly: In Staffordshire, the protestations that the cuts should not hit front-line services simply sound absurd. From this November, the county, which has a Conservative-run council, is implementing a rule that will force serving police officers, irrespective of rank or experience, to retire once they have reached 30 years’ service. Does my right hon. Friend think that Staffordshire police will enforce regulation A19 lightly, or does he think that it has something to do with the severity and depth of the cuts?

Alun Michael: I am certain that it has a lot to do with the severity and depth of the cuts, and my hon. Friend refers precisely to the experience in my force area which has been replicated throughout the country.
	The point is that, at a time of severe cuts, many forces are having to take emergency action, rather than a considered approach that looks at the evidence of what works and makes sure that the police service increases its effectiveness and efficiency and is more successful, rather than less, in reducing crime. We have deep cause for concern. The cuts go too far.

Simon Hart: I am grateful to have been called in this debate, so soon after last week’s proceedings on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, to express some of the frustration that has reached me from police officers in the far west Dyfed Powys force and, indeed, from members of the public, who are increasingly concerned about seemingly being used as a political pawn in the debate. It is affecting that vital bond between the public and the police, and indeed the morale of police officers themselves.
	In our debate last week, I drew a parallel with the ongoing consultation on the future of the coastguard service, simply to remind myself as well as the House that the great passion for that service—one that is crucial in west Wales at Milford Haven—is built on loyalty, public respect, a sense of ownership and the sense that the coastguard and, indeed, the police are somehow part of the fabric and the architecture of the community, and that people know that when they ring the coastguard, as with the police, they will get a trusted and, above all, local response. That is increasingly relevant in this debate.
	As hon. Members know, the Dyfed Powys force covers a huge geographical area of rural west Wales, but it has its fair share of terrorist-related incidents, urban crime and industrial-related challenges. Above all, however, what the force possesses is an ancient relationship with the community, and the potential compromise of that relationship, as a result of the terms of the Opposition’s motion, is causing our officers and our public to waver between nervousness and distrust and, at times, contempt. Public confidence is very precious, and the idea that we can compromise it on the back of financial mismanagement over the past few years is the scandal at the heart of this debate, rather than the proposals put forward by the Government.
	Several Members have referred to conversations that they have had with their local chief constables, and I will be no exception. Mr Ian Arundale, who is highly respected by the public in our area and by his own members of staff, has told me on more than one occasion that the proposals are challenging but need not compromise public safety.

Mel Stride: The Opposition consistently contend that we are facing 20% cuts across the board, yet we know that the precept is not subject to those cuts, and that officers are likely to face a two-year pay freeze in the future, which means that in fact the cuts are far lower. Does my hon. Friend agree that a much more responsible approach is to make that clear, as that will be less worrisome to his constituents and mine?

Simon Hart: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, responsibility and irresponsibility lie at the heart of this debate. I cannot think of a more irresponsible approach than to try to frighten the most vulnerable in society, and the police service itself, with spurious claims that cannot be backed up by fact.

Stephen McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the chief constable of Lancashire, who is the ACPO lead on performance management, was being irresponsible or misleading when he said on the “Today” programme on 29 March,
	“we cannot leave the front line untouched and that is because of the scale of the cuts”?

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman may also be interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who said:
	“I don’t think it’s possible to make a direct correlation between police numbers and crime reduction.”
	It is being assumed that a reduced number of police officers means a reduced service. I would argue, as have chief constables across the land, including my own, that that is not as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman might suggest. In Dyfed Powys, there will be a different sort of policing as a consequence of these changes—it will look different, as I said last week. There will be a greater reliance on technology, and things will not be quite as they were before. However, it is irresponsible to suggest that the public are somehow endangered as a result, and that makes the motion something that the Opposition should be rather ashamed of.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that police numbers and crime are not linked. Is he therefore suggesting that if crime does not go up we should carry on cutting police numbers?

Simon Hart: I fully follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The comment I made is attributed to a Member from his own party, and a similar comment was made by the former Home Secretary, so perhaps he will take it up with them when he has the opportunity.
	I commend the approach of the Dyfed Powys force in its tackling of the challenges ahead. It had a simple strategy, which was to list its challenges as the things that it must do, the things that it could do, and the things that it must stop doing. Hon. Members may be interested to discover, as I was, that the last of those three lists is longer than Labour Members may care to consider. One such example was the victims of crime leaflet, a new Labour gimmick if ever there was one, which was abandoned by the Dyfed Powys police force as being a waste of officers’ time and the public’s time, and—guess what?—public satisfaction with the force went up at the same time as that measure was disposed of. That illustrates what I think, what my voters think, and what the police officers of Dyfed Powys think—that we would much rather have our police officers engaged in proper crime prevention and detection than in subsequently taking part in some sort of PR exercise to suit a political agenda.

Alan Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman join me, and indeed the Government, in welcoming the comments of Baroness Newlove who
	said last week that the assets of criminals should be used more for the benefit of the community that they have harmed? How does he suggest that that happens in the Northumbria police area, where the asset recovery unit is going to be subject to the cuts that he is advocating?

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a constabulary that is about as far away from my own as it is possible to go. All I can say on behalf of my own area is that we simply want our police officers to be solving crime and, better still, preventing crime—dealing with the realities of day-to-day life rather than engaging in spurious PR exercises and form filling of the sort that has dominated the political agenda for some time and that this Government are rightly seeking to reduce.
	There is talk of its being easier simply not to replace chief superintendents—I almost said chief constables, which was a bit of a Freudian slip—after their 30-year service has come to an end. Of course there is a temptation to take that approach but, certainly in our case, it is balanced with the clear need seriously to address the issue of back-office support that other hon. Members have mentioned. That has been slightly misrepresented, because huge importance is attached to back-office police work as distinct from back-office administrative activity. The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was a little disingenuous in not making that clear separation.

Paul Farrelly: I mentioned the 149 police officers being forced to resign after 30 years’ service in Staffordshire, but I did not mention the six police stations, including my own in Newcastle-under-Lyme, that are being closed because of the cuts. These are police stations that survived Margaret Thatcher and are now falling victim to Cameron-Clegg. Would the hon. Gentleman designate those as much-needed assets or merely back-office functions that can be reorganised willy-nilly?

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman conveniently takes me on to my next point.
	I do not think anybody on the Government Benches—obviously I cannot speak for the Home Secretary—has gone into these challenges with any great sense of glee based on any great ideology. It is grim reality time—responsibility time. I was fortunate enough to operate in the private sector before I came to this place. I was responsible for 90 employees and a budget of £5 million. Every single year I was forced to reduce that budget, every single year I went to my departmental head, every single year they said they could not do it, and every single year they said it would never be the same again and the end of civilisation as we know it, and—guess what?—after 10 years we had a lean, efficient machine that served its members responsibly and cost-effectively. What it boils down to—my own chief constable has said this publicly and privately—is that police officers are well capable of applying the same corporate disciplines in the police world that most people out there in the real world apply to their businesses. We should not automatically assume that a new approach to efficient policing will necessarily lead to compromises in safety.
	The Government’s proposals take us back to relatively recent levels of funding, not to the dark ages. They remove a thick layer of bureaucracy that I thought
	everybody in this House was keen to see rid of, as well as members of the public and the police force. These proposals take police officers out of their offices and put them back where we need them: solving and preventing crime, and closer to their communities.
	The scandal of this motion, and the reason I took part in this debate—I had no serious intention of doing so, but I was driven to it by frustration—is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting vulnerable people in society or defending jobs in the police, and everything to do with furthering Labour’s political aims. To do that in the run-up to a Welsh Assembly election when so many things are at stake, and to do so at the expense of the fear of vulnerable people in society and police officers worried about their jobs, is an absolute scandal. For that reason alone, the motion should fail dismally.

Julie Elliott: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this important debate.
	In January, I met the acting chief constable of Northumbria police to discuss the significant challenges she now has to face. Owing to central Government cuts, Northumbria police have to identify more than £57 million of cuts to be made over the next three years. That will lead to fewer police on our streets. I recognise that some savings are inevitable, but the depth and extent of the cuts that this Government are imposing on our police force will have a long and lasting effect on our communities and my constituents. My local police authority has confirmed that 318 police officers will lose their jobs, and that 825 support staff jobs will be lost. That is 41% of all support staff. In total, the sad figure of 1,143 jobs will be lost across the region.
	Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary warned that forces could make savings of up to 12% before front-line policing would be affected. This Government have arrogantly gone ahead with cutting central funding to the police by 20%, while continuing to claim that front-line services will be protected. Despite the cuts, Northumbria police are expected to maintain or even improve the services they provide. The numbers simply do not add up. I believe that this situation is impossible. I fail to see how Northumbria police’s track record of excellence and the quality of service that they provide to my constituents will not be challenged and compromised by the loss of staff.
	Before entering this House, I was a trade union official for the GMB, as is stated in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For a number of years, I had the privilege of representing GMB members employed by Northumbria police as support staff, so I understand the jobs that support staff do. I know how hard they work and how dedicated they are to providing an excellent service to the residents of the Northumbria police area.

Louise Mensch: Will the hon. Lady speculate on what the effect would be on Northumbria police of the policing cuts that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has just announced that Labour would have made of 15% over the course of this Parliament?

Julie Elliott: That is substantially less than the Government propose. The key point is that it would be done over the course of a Parliament. These cuts are being implemented now—too fast and too deep.
	The jobs that support staff do are crucial and important; they are not anonymous pen pushers. They do jobs such as taking calls from the public and directing them to the correct area within the force or escalating them to the correct level—for instance, if an accident has happened. Some are employed at the driver training school, which teaches all police officers specialist driving skills, such as how to drive safely at speed, before allowing them to drive a police car. Those are not jobs that do not have to be done, but essential jobs. If support staff do not do them, someone else will have to. They are not the type of jobs that can be got rid of.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Perhaps the hon. Lady can understand why the public are slightly confused about the numbers. Since 1994, police numbers have gone up by 16%, but back-room staff numbers have gone up by 54%. The public wonder about the productivity of the back-room staff because crime figures are not exactly moving in the right direction very quickly.

Julie Elliott: If back-room staff are freeing police officers to be out on the streets dealing with crime, they are doing an important job in bringing down crime. That is what my constituents say to me.
	Staffing rationalisations, which I have heard much about from Government Members, have been ongoing for many years in police services. In my opinion, support staffing is down to a level where there is little, if any, slack. The cuts will take police officers off the streets to do support staff jobs. The result will be many fewer police doing front-line duties.
	When Labour left office, there was a record number of police on the streets—nearly 17,000 more than in 1997—and 16,000 new police community support officers. Inevitably, the record number of police officers on our streets meant that crime fell dramatically. That is a record of which all Labour Members can be proud. The Government are unravelling all the work that was done to increase police numbers and as a result are putting the safety of our communities at risk.
	The question I ask today is this: I know that my constituents value their police force, so why do this Government not? When the police do so much to protect our homes, families and communities it is only right that we show them just how valuable they are. At the moment, the Government are sending the police the opposite message from that of my constituents.
	Over the last few weeks, many police officers who live and work in my constituency have contacted me. They are concerned about the additional and unnecessary pressure they will face as a result of the Government’s cuts. One serving police officer contacted me recently to say:
	“The cuts to police officers and police staff will have a massive effect on our ability to police the streets throughout our force area. Our command team have no alternative but to face the press and pretend to them that we can make ourselves more efficient and improve the service we deliver. To say anything else would cause panic across our force area. This is the direct result of the massive cuts to police budgets imposed by the current government”.
	I think that that sums it up. I ask the Government to consider the impossible position in which they are putting our police officers and chief constables.
	For years, Sunderland has led the field in tackling domestic violence. The Safer Sunderland Partnership and its dedicated team have worked tirelessly and effectively to support women and children who are victims of and at risk from domestic violence. The Government cuts will put such specialist policing units under strain or facing closure. Sunderland’s safer communities team is losing its highly dedicated domestic violence co-ordinator. Our communities, and the women and children whom these services protect, cannot afford to take that risk. The Government do not seem to consider specialist services such as domestic violence, child abuse and serious organised crime units, or those involved in training, to be front-line services and they will not be exempt from the cuts. The Government may not consider such units to be important, but my constituents do and they greatly appreciate the work that they do to protect our community.
	It is time that the Government faced up to reality and recognised the risks that they are taking with crime in our communities—risks that we cannot afford. They must review the level of cuts that they are imposing before it is too late.

Tom Brake: The Government are facing up to reality. The most challenging financial circumstances that this country has faced since the second world war have made me acknowledge that the quality of policing cannot simply be about the number of police; it must also be about how well they are deployed. Government Members have always been clear that police forces can make savings, while protecting front-line services and prioritising the visibility and availability of policing.
	There may be no agreement on that between the Government and the Opposition, but at least there is agreement on police budgets. Let us be clear: the Labour party admits that it would be cutting police funding, that it could not guarantee police numbers, and that it could not guarantee that police staff would not be lost. That is not only because of the cuts to police funding that it had proposed, but because, irrespective of the plethora of targets that operated when it was in power, it still could not dictate to chief constables exactly whom they did or did not employ.
	At the moment, the police are crippled by bureaucracy and spend more time on paperwork than on patrol. That frustrates the police, who want to do their job, and the public, who want to see more police on the streets. The coalition Government are scrapping unnecessary bureaucracy to save police time. The Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos both said that we would reduce time-wasting bureaucracy, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are helping the police to make savings, and to ensure that resources are focused on the front line.

Graham Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman not add cutting crime to that list? He has listed bureaucracy, but surely the purpose of the police is to cut crime. Will that be in his speech at some point?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is the second point on which we can agree: the police should, indeed, cut crime.
	The police could also make savings from consolidating IT services, as the Home Secretary said. The police have no fewer than 2,000 separate IT systems. Surely that is a good place to look for savings. We can do much more with technology to help the police use their time more effectively, and all parties agree that we need to do much more to ensure smarter procurement.
	Another point on which the coalition partners agree, but on which Labour opposes us, is the terms and conditions of police officers. The Government were right to set up the Winsor review of police pay and conditions, and of course the coalition Government will work in co-operation with the police negotiating bodies on the matter. To fight crime, we need a modern and flexible work force to help chief constables manage their resources properly, maximise officer time and improve the service to the public. We are clear, of course, that the police must be fairly compensated for their work, which is difficult and often dangerous, as we have been tragically reminded over the weekend following the callous murder of Ronan Kerr.
	What are the key facts behind what the coalition Government are doing? It is true that Government funding for the police is being reduced, and will be reduced throughout this Parliament. However, as the Home Secretary said, the police also receive precept funding, and the Government’s freeze in police pay will make a substantial contribution to maintaining budgets.
	I acknowledge that the picture across the country is complex, and it is clear from the reports that we are getting from different forces that some are finding the situation tougher to address than others. However, as Members have said, some police forces are actually increasing the number of front-line officers, such as Gloucestershire police, which is moving up to 15% of police officers into more visible roles. Many Members have quoted the HMIC report, which revealed that some forces have twice the visibility and availability of policing of others. It is clear that all forces can make improvements to the visibility of police officers.
	The same report showed that a third of resources are not on the front line, and highlighted the great differences in the visibility of police officers at different times. Some 16% are visible on a Friday morning at 9 o’clock, but only 9% are visible and available on a Friday night. Again, it is clear that there are things that forces can do to increase the visibility of police without necessarily touching police numbers. They can provide police at the time when the public want to see them. I am sure all Members have been accosted by constituents who ask them why police officers and safer neighbourhood teams are out patrolling at 9 o’clock on a Monday morning rather than in the town centre at 9 o’clock on a Friday night. Improvements can therefore be made to rotas.
	The Labour party’s record is worthy of some scrutiny. As Opposition Members may well know, in 2009 just 14% of all officers’ time was spent on patrol, compared with 22% on paperwork. In one year alone, from 2007 to 2008, the amount of time spent on paperwork increased by 22%. The Home Secretary referred to the comment of Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, that Labour had a political obsession with numbers of police.

Stephen Twigg: rose—

Tom Brake: Perhaps one could argue that the Liberal Democrats had that obsession too. I am very happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I may have pre-empted his point.

Stephen Twigg: I am grateful. In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, does he regret the commitment that he stood on last May of 3,000 additional police officers?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, and I apologise for pre-empting it. However, I said at the beginning of my speech that the circumstances that we are in have required all parties to reappraise any prior commitments in their manifestos. Quite simply, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, there is no money.
	I turn back to the previous Government’s record. Jan Berry, as the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) mentioned, said about police bureaucracy:
	“I would estimate one-third of effort is either over-engineered, duplicated or adds no additional value.”
	She was the person whom the previous Government chose to examine bureaucracy, and that was her assessment of police effort.

Keith Vaz: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would have been sensible if Jan Berry had been asked to continue the work that she started? She produced an excellent report, but I understand that her work has now been transferred to the chief constable of the West Midlands, a serving chief constable. Surely it would have been better if Jan Berry had been allowed to monitor the results of her recommendations.

Tom Brake: I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I am absolutely certain that the work that Jan Berry has already done will inform what the chief constable and the Government are doing to address bureaucracy.
	A previous Labour Home Secretary, when he was asked in April 2010 whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall, said that he could not. The shadow Chancellor is on record as saying that under his plans,
	“you will lose some non-uniformed back office staff”.
	It is interesting that the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Chancellor cannot even agree among themselves what their position on the Winsor review is. The former has attacked the Government for initiating the review, but the latter has said that overtime and shift work savings are something that
	“any sensible government would look at”.
	I suggest that they need to get their house in order first.

Yvette Cooper: To clarify, we have criticised the Government many times for pre-empting the Winsor review, not for commissioning it. We have criticised them for announcing their views on the amount of money that should be cut, and for criticising the police in the newspapers, in advance of the Winsor review rather than after it.

Tom Brake: I thank the shadow Home Secretary, but maybe she would like to intervene again and confirm whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that overtime and shift work savings are something that
	“any sensible government would look at”.

Yvette Cooper: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is inviting interventions, because we have said that it is right to examine how the police work. However, will he confirm that his party’s pledge of 3,000 additional officers was made when the now Deputy Prime Minister said that although financial circumstances were extremely difficult, the position of the police was so important that there would be 3,000 additional police officers as part of his party’s manifesto commitment?

Tom Brake: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for intervening and putting on record the Labour party policy on policing—that it is right to examine how the police work. That is as close to a policy statement as we are going to get tonight.
	The debate could have been an opportunity to discuss the coalition’s programme of police reform and budget reductions, and to contrast that with the Opposition’s track record and future plans. Regrettably, the Opposition did not grasp that opportunity. Instead, we had the usual “too fast and too deep” or, alternatively, “too far and too fast” line from the shadow Home Secretary, peppered with lame police and justice themed jokes, recycled from an earlier speech. When will she accept that saying that the coalition is going too far, too fast does not amount to a policy for the Labour party? If she wants to be taken seriously, she will have to work out her party’s policy before she next stands at the Dispatch Box.

Graham Jones: The Government speak of reform of the police force: of front-line services and of back-office management. However, “reform” is a euphemism that the Government use for the most drastic cuts to one of our most vital public services.
	Actions speak louder than words, and the public will judge the Government on their actions and their decision to cut the police budget by 20%. The Government speak of reform, but the reality is deep and damaging cuts, which will drastically affect the front line of our police force.
	We should not underestimate the scale of the cuts. Almost a quarter of a million people are employed by 43 police forces in England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers has put a figure on how the Government’s 20% cut is likely to translate into the number of officers on the street. It estimates that 28,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts. Of those, 12,000 will be police officers and 16,000 will be so-called civilian staff. That represents a fall of around 12% in overall staff numbers, with 8% of officers losing their jobs.
	The Government’s Winsor review states that the taxpayer will save £485 million over three years as a result of those cuts, but at what cost? Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that more than two thirds of all police force staff in England and Wales are employed in front-line roles, but that not all are necessarily visible. It stated that the front line is
	“not just what you notice, but it’s also what you rely on.”
	We must not make a clinical distinction between front-line and back-office policing. That is too crude. We must not confuse visibility with deployment.
	HMIC found that 95% of police officers are either on the front line or working in important middle-office roles in—for example, intelligence gathering or operation planning. Even if the Government’s claim that cuts of 20% would affect only back-office roles were true, those middle and back-office roles are not simply disposable assets. Cuts to middle and back-office roles will inevitably have an effect on the ability of those on the front line to do their jobs.
	The Prime Minister said:
	“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]
	I would like to echo the words of Steve Finnigan, our chief constable. He said that preventing cuts from hitting the front line would prove challenging. He went further, saying that it would be impossible to protect the front line. He was asked this week whether the Government’s cuts mean that he will have to reduce front-line policing and he replied, “I absolutely am.” Chief Constable Finnigan is ACPO’s lead officer on performance management. Does the Home Secretary think that he is wrong? Does she think that Chief Constable Finnigan of ACPO and Lancashire police is not managing his force correctly?
	The point is simple, and we are hearing it from forces throughout the country. We simply cannot make cuts of 20% without hitting front-line services. Our police force is one of our most vital public services. Those officers do some of the hardest jobs in the most demanding circumstances and the Government have wholly underestimated their commitment and dedication.
	The Government’s so-called reforms will inevitably have an impact on the police service for years to come. The Government promised that there would be no centrally determined job losses—I suppose that that is technically true. Instead, the Government are responsible for the heavy front-loaded cuts, leaving the inevitable job losses in the hands of local authorities and the police.
	The priority must be to protect the visibility and availability of police forces in our local communities. However, my constituents are far from optimistic about the so-called reforms. Lancashire Police Federation has said that, in the light of cuts, the force will be hit doubly with job losses and pay cuts, about which we have already heard.

Helen Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Jones: I would like to finish, please. Plenty of other hon. Members wish to speak.
	John O’Reilly, chairman of Lancashire Police Federation, said:
	“Lancashire is a top performing force because of its workforce.”
	John goes on to say that
	“if the Government keep bashing us, all they are doing is opening up the door for criminals to make life more difficult.”
	Figures put to the Lancashire police authority suggest a drastic reduction in the number of officers, which would put Lancashire’s officer strength at its lowest since 2003.
	In the period since 2003, Lancashire has experienced the greatest fall in crime, and I would not like to go back to 2003 crime levels. However, the cuts will result in an eight-year low in the number of police officers on Lancashire’s streets.
	Everyone supports sensible reform, but the Government are hitting our police forces hard, and it will be to the detriment of our local communities. My constituents are concerned that cuts to our already stretched police force will be an open invitation for criminals to commit more crime. Do the Government really think that crime levels will not rise with the police force stretched, understaffed and under-resourced? Do they honestly think that antisocial behaviour will not increase, and that the safety in our streets will not be put into question as a result of there being fewer officers on the beat?
	Two thirds of the British public share those concerns and, to date, the Government have done nothing to put those concerns to rest. People are clearly concerned that reduced police funding will have detrimental effects, and at the same time, the Government are prepared to spend £40 million or thereabouts on electing police commissioners.
	Furthermore, there has been a two-year delay on the decision on whether police community support officers will continue. My constituents are worried not only about police cuts, but about the Home Office budgets that affect PCSOs. This is not just a numbers game. The Government seem happy to cut our police force by a fifth, but have they paid any thought to the experience and expertise of the PCSOs who will be lost as a result of those cuts?
	The Home Secretary must realise that she cannot make drastic cuts of 20% to the police budget without losing some of our most experienced and dedicated officers from the front line. The Government must think again on the scale and pace of the cuts. They are going too far, too fast.

Alok Sharma: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate.
	Since the start of this Parliament, we have had numerous Opposition day debates on a range of subjects, but the core of every debate is always the same—public spending and public sector reform—and the Labour party always falls back and repeats the same tired mantra that the coalition is cutting too fast and too far.
	Of course, to date the Opposition have offered no alternative. They have no credible policies to speak of and there is still no ink on the Leader of the Opposition’s blank sheet of policy paper. Perhaps there is an untidy smudge, because after all, in February, he and the shadow Chancellor tried to instil some discipline in the shadow ministerial ranks by asking that all potential commitments be cleared by the Labour high command. That discipline, however, was in tatters in no time. Over the past few weeks, Labour has opposed £50 billion of savings proposed by the coalition, and made £12 billion—and rising—of unfunded spending commitments. That is no economic policy; it is voodoo economics.
	To understand what Labour would have done had it been in government, we need to look back at its plans.
	The coalition inherited planned spending cuts from Labour of £14 billion in 2011-12, and the coalition savings amount to £16 billion for the same period, which is a ratio of 9:10. It is all very well Labour Members moaning about the level and pace of cuts, and the front-loading of savings, but the fact is that they planned to do exactly the same.
	It is all very well the shadow Home Secretary wailing about police numbers, but before the general election—a number of colleagues have alluded to this—her colleague, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), made the point that he could not guarantee police numbers if Labour were re-elected and returned to office. It is all very well the shadow Home Secretary attacking the Winsor review, as she did again today, but her colleague, the former Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who is not in the Chamber, confirmed that Labour planned to cut police overtime if it returned to office. I do not understands—and I guess no Government Members understands—why the Labour party and the shadow Home Secretary oppose the Winsor review.
	The shadow Home Secretary may well moan about cuts generally, but she should remember, as do many outside the House, that the Government of whom she was a member created the mess and the record deficit that the coalition is trying to fix. Just for the record, and because Labour Members still do not get it after 12 months in opposition, let us remember Labour’s legacy: the biggest deficit in the developed world, and £120 million paid out every day in interest alone by the British taxpayer. That is three and half times the total that we spend on policing in the UK.
	Have the British people ever had an apology from Labour for creating that toxic financial mess? No. And what of the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Labour’s decade of destructive debt? The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) seems to have abandoned the House completely—I do not think that we have seen in him here in recent times—and in his utterances, the shadow Chancellor seems to be morphing into the Labour Prime Minister of the late ’70s, saying, “Deficit? What structural deficit?” That is where we have come to.
	A few weeks ago, the shadow Home Secretary turned up in my constituency in a marginal ward to moan about cuts in front-line policing and to worry my constituents—what a surprise with local elections due in May. To get her facts she chose, rather unwisely, to listen to the apparatchiks, dinosaurs and deficit deniers who currently comprise the Labour party in Reading. [ Interruption. ] Oh, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has met them! They are the same folk who managed, between 2002 and 2010, to increase Reading council’s debt from £41 million to an eye-watering £200 million, with no debt-reduction plan in sight—that sounds familiar does it not? There was £1 million of taxpayers’ money wasted on consultants here and £1.4 million to pay for full-time union officials there, but then Labour has always been very good at frittering away taxpayers’ money.
	Had the shadow Home Secretary bothered to speak to the chief constable of Thames Valley police before her visit to Reading, she would have heard a different story. She could perhaps have Googled, as she is doing
	now, and seen the stories in the press from February. What is absolutely clear is that, despite having to make savings, Thames Valley police has made it clear that it will not cut the resources committed to neighbourhood policing and patrols. That is its commitment to visible policing—protecting the front line. It is finding savings by removing management layers and collaborating successfully with the neighbouring Hampshire police in key areas to save back and middle-office costs. Examples include a single, shared IT department that will save millions of pounds and shared firearms and dog training. It is collaborating with other forces in areas such as air support, witness protection, specialist operations and technical support. While finding savings and protecting the front line, Thames Valley police is also increasing the number of special constables, having recruited 570 in the past six months alone.
	Thanks to Labour’s budget deficit, police forces and other public services are having to find savings, but we should also remember, as a number of my colleagues on the Government side have said, that many in the private sector have had to find savings of more than 3%, 4% or 5% a year for the past few years. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, possible, and Thames Valley police is demonstrating that it can find savings and protect the front line at the same time. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the police officers and PCSOs in Reading who do such a great job and are so dedicated to serving the local community.
	In conclusion, this is just another cynical Opposition motion. It demonstrates that Labour is not ready for a grown-up discussion about tackling its budget deficit and I will be voting against it this evening.

Siobhain McDonagh: I shall concentrate my remarks on what is happening in my part of south London and in the Metropolitan police area, where there is a serious undermining of the credibility of senior police officers at the moment, because of their collusion with the Mayor and deputy Mayor in suggesting that there are no cuts to safer neighbourhoods teams.
	First, let me say that I am truly obsessed by police numbers, and I am joined in that obsession by the 74,000 people who also live in my constituency—people who voted Labour, Conservative or Liberal, or who did not vote at all; men and women; people of all races; people who have come to this country recently and people who were born in this country, perhaps in south London. All those people are obsessed with police numbers because their top concern is their personal safety and their desire to feel safe from crime. I am talking about crime numbers and the fear of crime.
	We in the House often forget that there has been a revolution in policing in the past 10 years. There has been a rowing back of the police policy of 50 years—the policy of getting off the street, out of the neighbourhood and into the panda car, to be with the blue light and not with the old lady on the street or the young guys down the street who did not know police officers’ names and increasingly came into conflict with them.
	In the past 10 years we have seen an enormous change in the relationship between the Metropolitan police and the communities that make up London. All
	communities now want more police and they all believe that antisocial behaviour and crime need to be tackled. More people are also prepared to give evidence—to stand up and be brave in the face of some of the most shocking crimes that we have seen recently in London. Operation Trident, dealing with black crime, has also been a fantastic success.
	However, that success does not come out of thin air; it comes from politicians—yes, politicians—making decisions about policing and saying, sometimes in the face of opposition from leading police officers, “We want to get back to community policing and we want to introduce safer neighbourhood police teams.” I give credit to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), for introducing safer neighbourhood teams and police community support officers. His decisions were sometimes derided, but those initiatives have brought about the biggest increase in confidence in policing and the biggest reduction in crime in modern times, all because of those simple things that we all know to be true, irrespective of our political ideologies.
	For policing to work, it has to be about community. People have to know who their police officers are and to feel that they can give information to them, because the police can never sort out crime on their own. They need all of us with them, and that is what the safer neighbourhood teams were beginning to do. Were they perfect? Did they all do the right things? No, certainly not. Indeed, I have spent most of the last 10 years fighting with my safer neighbourhood teams, because I have not liked their shift patterns, nor have I agreed that they should be out more at 9 o’clock in the morning than at 9 o’clock at night, and that goes for Mondays as much as for Saturdays or Sundays. Indeed, when my dad was dying, I found the energy to sit all my safer neighbourhood teams down, along with all the trade unions, and say, “You have to change these practices.” Is the Home Secretary right to look at police practices? Yes, she is; but in doing that, she also has to say that we need to keep safer neighbourhood teams on our streets.
	In my constituency those officers are declining in number, yet the area commander and the leadership of the Met deny that this is happening. Currently, eight out of my 10 safer neighbourhood teams are not fully staffed. They have gone down to one PC, and none has a full complement of police community support officers. That is not something that I have dreamt up or that a disgruntled police officer has told me—although many are willing to tell me—but something that can be found on the Merton police service’s website. Consultations begin all the time on what safer neighbourhood policing should look like, but the whole drift and drive are about reducing team numbers, merging and deciding that some areas are not worthy of their team, because they are not crime-ridden enough. However, as far as I am concerned, people in every ward pay their taxes and they deserve to have their neighbourhood police team.
	If the Government and the Mayor believe that the cuts should fall on safer neighbourhood teams, let me say this: stand up and say it. Do not pretend and do not lie, because the consequences will be enormous, and if we row back on people’s confidence in the police, we will all have a problem.
	I was watching the BBC’s nightly London news programme back in February when I saw my good friend Councillor Martin Whelton talking about how
	his safer neighbourhood team was being merged with the team in Longthornton, and how the two police panels had been merged. Later in the same news item I saw Mr Ian McPherson, the Assistant Commissioner—whom I have never met—explain that that was not happening. The local councillor on the ground and the members of the panels were saying, “Yes, this is happening,” but the Assistant Commissioner was saying, “No, it isn’t”, so I sought to clarify the situation. On 18 February, I wrote to Mr McPherson to say:
	“I write further to my discussions with the Area Commander of Merton Police Service, Mr Wolfenden, and your interview on BBC London on Thursday February 17th, in which you suggested that there were no plans to reduce the size of Safer Neighbourhood Teams.
	As my colleague, Councillor Martin Whelton, suggested in the news report from Mitcham, the evidence on the ground contradicts the content of your TV interview. I am personally aware that the Longthornton and Pollards Hill teams have now merged and only have one sergeant, both having only one PC. In addition, I am also aware that a PC was removed from the Lavender team and transferred to Graveney. As you will be aware, the concentration of crime and anti-social behaviour in the London Borough of Merton is within the Mitcham and Morden constituency, with high levels of crime and fear of crime in Lavender, Cricket Green, Figges Marsh and Pollards Hill. If you were to reorganise the police officers to match this need, those wards would be receiving greater, not less, cover.
	I have also been informed by officers at all levels within the Merton Service, that there is no point to argue for the continuation of the ten teams in my constituency as this cannot be sustained due to the need to cut back on sergeants within the Metropolitan Police Service. The need to reduce the number of officers and the inability to sustain the Safer Neighbourhood Teams was also contained on the Merton Voluntary Service Council website, who themselves were informed that there needed to be cuts in sergeants and police officers.
	Given the evidence on the ground, and concern of local councillors and residents, I would be very grateful if you might meet with me in my constituency to discuss these matters further. I am concerned that there are changes being undertaken on the ground that you do not appear to be aware of. I would be happy to arrange a meeting with councillors and concerned local residents where we could discuss these matters.”
	That letter was written on 18 February. To date, I have not received the courtesy of a reply. In getting no response, I am not offended personally, but I am offended on behalf of my constituents, who fear crime and want to keep their police officers.
	I would ask for a modicum of honesty in this matter. It is absolutely right to look at how a big public service like the police works. The desire for continuing efficiency is absolutely right, but the idea that police officers can be taken off the street and be put back in cars at the same time as continuing to reduce crime itself and, more importantly, the fear of crime is a complete lie and a fantasy. We should stop these lies.

Nigel Mills: This is the fourth time in my short career in the House that I have spoken in a policing debate and, sadly, the second time I have done so while a murder investigation is ongoing in my constituency. That makes it a good time for me to pay tribute to the police for their hard work. Large-scale and difficult investigations like this one after the senseless
	murder of young Jia Ashton in Somercotes a couple of weeks ago help us all to appreciate how hard a job the police sometimes have.
	It is important to put our debate on policing into context. We are debating the subject in the shadow of the most difficult public finance situation in peacetime history. As we look through these large and confusing numbers, it is important to realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) just explained, that the Opposition’s last financial plan when they were in government involved them in about 90% of the spending reductions for this financial year—a difference of only £2 billion, which they spent many times over. They cannot get away with saying that if they were in power we would not have to face the huge savings that need to be made or the huge cuts that need to be found. In fact, neither of the main parties at the last election pledged to make no reduction in police funding or police numbers. Moreover, the last Labour Home Secretary—we have already had three shadow Home Secretaries in this Parliament—admitted that police numbers would fall under Labour as well.
	The public do not much enjoy listening to us throwing blame around the Chamber. They want to hear us talk about what the Government should be doing to ensure that we have the efficient and effective policing that we need. The Government might have passed a Bill stating that there would be no reductions in uniformed police officers, but I am not sure whether we could have recommended such a Bill or whether it would have worked or been at all sensible. We have all seen the awful trend of having uniformed officers working at back-office functions for which they are not trained and which they are probably overpaid to do. What we need is something different. We want the highly trained police officers to be out on the streets, not doing support or back-office roles, however we want to define them.
	The Government clearly can and should do certain things. I would like to talk about three particular examples: the funding for each force, reforms to pay and conditions and taking steps to strip away bureaucracy. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is still in the Chamber. She has heard me say this before, but I think it is important to bear in mind the difference in funding levels. Let me point out yet again that for many years Derbyshire has lost about £5 million a year —which equates roughly to 160 officers—because the last Government did not implement their own funding formula establishing the requirement for each force.
	I realise that it was not possible for any Government to solve the problem in the time available, but I urge the Home Secretary, when the next funding round arrives, either to start to implement the existing funding formula or to introduce a new one. It cannot be right for us to keep saying “Here is a formula; here is the amount that you want; oh, sorry, you cannot have it”. That simply is not sustainable. We are led to believe that some forces do not have to work under the same financial pressures as Derbyshire and several other authorities in the east midlands.
	I may gain more agreement from my colleagues on the Front Bench when I speak of the need to reform pay and conditions. The point has been well made that at a time when more than 75% of police budgets is spent on pay, there is a clear link: if we do not reform pay and conditions, we shall have to accept a smaller head
	count. Although imposing a two-year pay freeze is not a pleasant task, reforming police allowances and overtime payments must be the way forward. I say that cautiously, as the police service parliamentary scheme enables me to spend Wednesdays touring Chesterfield with members of the police force. I hope that, if they read the report of my speech, they will understand what I was trying to say. I am happy to debate the issue with them.
	I urge the Government to make some progress on the Winsor review. The last thing that any of us want is for police forces to have to make cuts and savings and then, when the final recommendations of the review are published, to discover that the problem was not as bad as had been feared, and that they need not have made those savings. A degree of certainty on pay and conditions and the pension position will help everyone. I do not think that any of us work at our best with a huge amount of uncertainty hanging over us for longer than necessary.
	We also need to strip away bureaucracy, and during their 11 months in power the Government have made considerable progress in that regard. We all want as many man hours as possible to be spent on the front line. I believe that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary defines the front line as officers
	“who directly intervene to keep people safe and enforce the law”.
	I do not know whether others agree with that definition, but it strikes me as a reasonable form of words.
	The abolition of the police pledge, the reduction of bureaucracy and the granting of more discretion to the police to fight crime should be hugely welcomed. Talk of absolute police numbers is not the clearest way of discussing the issue; I think that what the public want to see is the right number of officers engaged in the right duties at the right times and in the right places, working in a smart manner.

Tom Brake: One issue that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, other Members should consider is the amount of time spent by safer neighbourhood teams on petrol stations. I was appalled to discover that one BP garage in one ward was using 20% of the safer neighbourhood team’s time to deal with drive-outs and shoplifting. I suggest that Members with petrol stations in their constituencies ask how much of the local safer neighbourhood teams’ time is being spent in that way because they have not, for instance, ensured that CCTV is up to scratch, and that staff are properly trained to prevent shoplifting from becoming rife.

Nigel Mills: The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible point. I hope that the Government’s decision not to increase fuel tax even more will not provide any further encouragement for thefts from petrol stations.
	Various reports have been quoted as saying that in 2009 only 14% of police officers’ time was spent on patrol and 22% was spent on paperwork. That cannot be right: there must be scope for the police to work in a far smarter manner. According to Jan Berry’s report—which has been referred to—about a third of police time is ineffective, and that demonstrates the scope for savings.
	I commend the work that Derbyshire police have done, and continue to do, in their “Moving Forward” savings programme. I recently had an opportunity to quiz the chief constable, the officer in charge of the
	change programme and various others about how they were approaching it, and to challenge them by suggesting some additional things that they could think about. I was impressed by how well on track they were, and how well they had thought everything through. They have managed to save £700,000 already by putting sergeants back in charge of evidence gathering and case preparation, and they have saved about £1 million through increasing regional collaboration, so there are things that all forces can do.

Helen Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an emerging police willingness to work with other agencies in the community, and that they are doing that in a very exciting and innovative way, which is good for both public services and the improvement of the police force generally?

Nigel Mills: It would be impossible not to agree with that; it has to be the way forward for all the services that have interactions with each other to make those interactions more effective and to avoid the duplication that can arise.
	People must feel that the police are on their side. In the election campaign, I suspect that the following concern was expressed to every one of us time and again: “What do the police do? We never see them. They only want to tackle innocent motorists, and they don’t tackle serious crimes.” That is why the introduction of elected police commissioners—I have the pleasure of serving on the Public Bill Committee dealing with that—is a hugely powerful step. It is a way of saying, “Look, here is someone who can ensure that what the police do is what the public actually want them to do, and not what the chief constable, or the Government, might want them to do. Here is someone who is accountable to the public for delivering on police priorities.”
	Finally, let me say that it would have been a far more constructive use of parliamentary time if today we had debated those aspects of the Winsor review that we welcome or have concerns about. Instead, we have had what must be about the third debate on police funding, which has more to do with playing party games before the local elections than trying to improve the police force. Let us instead look at the challenges the police face, and work constructively to get the best and the most efficient, but also the most effective, police force that we can for all our constituents.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out to those Members still waiting to speak that the winding-up speeches will start at 9.40 pm and we simply will not have time to hear from everyone who wishes to contribute unless we have fewer interventions from those who have already spoken and each Member who speaks is considerate of the Member who is about to follow them? If that is the case, everybody will be able to make their points.

Stephen Twigg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). He made a thoughtful and reflective speech, which, frankly, is in complete contrast to all the
	other speeches delivered from the Government Benches this afternoon. I was astonished by how relaxed the other Conservative and Liberal Democrat speakers were about the scale of the police cuts we are experiencing as a direct consequence of decisions made by this Government—by the Conservative party, which used to be described as the party of law and order, and the Liberal Democrats, who advocated extra police officers on top of the additional officers Labour introduced throughout our period in government.
	Between 1997 and last year, there was an increase of 17,000 in police numbers, and at one stroke this Government are making a reduction of 12,000. There is a very significant difference between that and the reductions we propose and absolutely acknowledge need to be made, as referred to in our motion, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made clear in her speech. The cuts under the 12% figure cited by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary would be very different from those under the 20% figure that this Government are imposing on police forces up and down the country.
	I want to be brief in order to enable other Members to speak, so I will focus my remarks on the situation in Merseyside. Merseyside has already cut 200 officers and another 80 police staff. The force had a moratorium on recruitment during the previous financial year, and that continues. As a consequence, it anticipates a further reduction in officer numbers of 200. In other words, one in 12 officers in Merseyside will be lost in the space of just two years, and for the remaining period of this Parliament the force anticipates a total loss of 880 police officers and 1,000 police staff. In other words, one in five officers will go. I know from my discussions with the chief constable, with other senior officers and with front-line staff at the police stations in my constituency that they are doing their utmost to protect the front line, but they have said that because of the cuts in Government funding, front-line services will now be looked at.
	The Home Secretary said that local police forces had the option of increasing the council tax, and when I challenged her on whether she was advocating that, she was careful in her response. I wish to reiterate something that I have said in previous debates: the capacity of a local police force to secure additional funding by increasing the precept varies enormously from one police force to another. The key determinant of that variation is how deprived the local community is. Half of Surrey’s funding for the police comes from central Government and half is raised locally, whereas 82% of Merseyside’s police funding comes from central Government and only 18% is determined by local council tax. It does not take a mathematician to work out that the capacity of Merseyside police to raise additional funds locally is considerably less than that of the police in Surrey and in other parts of the country. The Merseyside force has made great strides in recent years in improving its efficiency and the quality of its service. That is why, although it is making efficiencies and will make further efficiencies, it is simply not going to be possible for it to balance its books without cuts in the front-line service.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the importance of the work done by the safer schools partnerships and, in particular, by police working
	in schools. The previous Government piloted this programme in 2002, when I was a Minister in the then Department for Education and Skills, and it was brought into the mainstream in 2006. I imagine that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have seen the very positive work done by police in schools, not only to tackle bullying but to ensure higher attendance levels and lower truancy rates in schools. Last year, “Robby the Bobby”, who is based at Lower Lane police station and who serves the Croxteth and Norris Green communities in my constituency, received the Queen’s police medal in the Queen’s birthday honours list. I want to pay tribute to him because he does great work, and I have seen that work. More importantly, however, I cite him because the work done by police in schools is so important. I would like to hear a reassurance from this Government that the safer schools programme is one to which they have the same commitment as the previous Government had.
	The Minister has responded to me on this point previously, but I ask him to respond again on the issue of the differential impact of police cuts on the poorest communities. I request him specifically to meet a Merseyside delegation of MPs and those from the police authority to discuss the issue, because we could make a real difference to the front-line service in Merseyside if we could reconsider the scale of the cuts and the unfairness involved in how they have a greater impact in a community such as mine than they do in a community such as the one that he represents.
	The main focus of tonight’s debate is on the fact that by going beyond the 12% figure that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has set out, the Government are endangering the quality of front-line policing in all our constituencies, no matter which part of the country we represent. For that reason, I urge the Government to think again.

Mark Reckless: First, I should declare an interest as a member of the Kent police authority. In that capacity, I get very frustrated about some of the numbers that the Opposition throw around. The shadow Home Secretary said that Kent’s police force had said that it was going to cut more than 500 officers, but it has not said that. The projection, once made, of 500 was on the basis of an assumption that the cut in grant was going to be significantly worse than it actually turned out to be.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) set up this great contrast between the 12% cut that Labour is very happy about and the 20% cut that we are supposedly imposing, but he does not draw attention to two key differences between those figures. First, the 20% reduction is a real reduction rather than a cash reduction, so a two-year pay freeze accounts for a significant portion of it and helps to explain totally appropriate front-loading, because that is the period in which the pay freeze will take place. In addition, the 20% does not allow for a precept, and assumes that the precept falls as much as the central grant. If we take those two factors into account, the reduction in central Government grant represents a more generous settlement than the one that HMIC said it would be possible to deliver. That reflects the importance that we place on policing and on police numbers.
	The motion is predicated on the assumption that there will be a cut of 12,000 in the number of police officers because that is the number that ACPO has put out. However, that number was put out before Tom Winsor’s report was published. It is a very long report, and I look forward to reaching its conclusion over the recess, but I have read quite a lot of it already. Tom Winsor is saying that, even for 2012-13, on the basis of his recommendations, there will be a further £200 million of savings, over and above those that police authorities and chief constables have already been pushing towards. If we generously assume that there will be add-on costs of about £50,000 per police officer, that would give us enough money for 4,000 officers. If we implement what Tom Winsor suggests in his interim report, we would get the number down from 12,000 to 8,000.
	That number will have to go through the national Police Negotiating Board, and there will doubtless be some pushback from the Police Federation and others, but in some areas Tom Winsor is actually being quite generous to the police in recognising the unique contribution that they make. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is no longer in his place, has suggested that 40% of officers would lose £4,000 on the basis of what Winsor has said, but that is quite wrong. Tom Winsor’s point was that, back in 1978, under Lord Edmund-Davies, a 9% shift allowance for unsocial hours was incorporated into the standard police pay. Tom Winsor went on to say that, logically, we should therefore reduce by 9% the pay for the 43% of officers whose role did not require them to work unsocial hours. Rather than recommending that, however, he has now left them as they are and proposed an additional 10% shift allowance for hours worked between 8 pm and 6 am.
	Another area in which Tom Winsor has been very generous to the police is that of the new expertise and professional accreditation allowance. Most police have been operating on the assumption that the special priority payments, which were introduced in 2003 and which have been quite divisive, would not be continued. If we take into account the additional allowance, which will be more costly than the special priority payments, we shall see a net increase in pay, even though most officers probably assumed that they would not get a special priority payment. Perhaps there will be a bit of give and take in the negotiations but, in those two areas in particular, Tom Winsor’s proposals are more generous than many officers would have expected.
	I should also like to touch on the ability of police forces to make savings. We also heard about this from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Most organisations try to find savings and do things more efficiently year by year. In policing, however, there was an increase in grant every year from central Government. Police forces were able to increase their numbers, deal with particular issues and have more police tackling problem areas without having to find savings in other areas to fund those activities.
	In Kent, we found a deputy chief constable who had been delivering a fantastic programme in Norfolk and finding very significant savings, all of which were able to be invested in the front line. Now, in tougher times, Kent is looking to strip out some of the inefficiencies. There might be too many people in central teams, or the intelligence area might be top heavy, so we will make
	savings in those areas. We are also going to work with Essex to form a single major and organised crime division, which will bring together a lot of the specialist areas. That will enable us to iron out the peaks and troughs in demand and deliver at least as good a service using fewer officers.
	When I first joined Kent police authority, I was concerned that we were not going out to find the savings and ask the difficult questions. Partly that is because police authorities are not elected, so there is no direct connection with the electorate that requires delivering the best possible policing while minimising the precepts. If one finds savings, asks difficult questions and tries to get the police to do things in a different way from the one they are used to, and which they perhaps prefer, that will always be quite difficult and with no direct electoral accountability, there is not necessarily the motivation to do that.
	In my police authority, in the past year or two at least, people have worked very hard to find savings and it has one of the lowest precepts in the country. I believe that in many police authorities across the country that have had consistent grant increases year on year, there is scope to find savings and to work together much more. There is no justification for having 43 different IT systems. A large amount of the police budget is police pay, but that is partly because the police deliver almost everything themselves with a direct labour force. In many areas of the public sector, we have found significant savings through outsourcing. Cleveland police has a control centre run by the private sector—it is outsourced—but it is quite rare in policing to make those more radical changes to deliver things as cheaply and efficiently as one can by going outside the police service. A direct electoral mandate would press people to deliver policing as well as they could for as little as they could. There is significant scope for savings and I believe that reductions can be made while protecting the front line and delivering the police service that the country deserves.

Jack Dromey: I pay tribute to our police service. It is quite remarkable how it has evolved over the years, learning sometimes difficult lessons of history from Scarman to Macpherson. Our Labour Government backed the police service and invested massively, with 17,000 more police officers and 16,000 police community support officers. An admirable model of community policing has led to a record fall in crime, and nowhere can that be seen better than in West Midlands police authority, under the leadership of Chief Constable Chris Sims.
	I have seen at first hand just how effective our police service is. In Castle Vale, the neighbourhood tasking group deals with problems of antisocial behaviour and there is excellent dialogue between the police and the local community, so that the young kids now go and play in a park and the older residents, who were complaining, enjoy their environment. When there was an outbreak of robberies in shops in Stockland Green, the police mounted an excellent operation and effective intelligence led to the arrests of those responsible. When there were two terrible knife murders in my constituency, including that of one young man who died on his doorstep in the arms of his mother, a huge police operation, with support from the community, led to arrests.
	The community values its community policing and there is complete dismay about the impact of the Government’s cuts on our police service, not least because the first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of our communities. It is therefore simply wrong for the Government to impose massive front-loaded cuts on the West Midlands police service that will lead to 2,400 people going, including 300 police officers who are going right now under regulation A19. It is absolutely wrong that the high-need, high-unemployment west midlands is being hit more than twice as hard as the leafy glades of Surrey and that Ministers pretend that there is no impact on front-line policing. Policing is about much more than just those who are out on the front line: the police team working together is key. Some of the earlier references to areas such as child protection, domestic violence and counter-terrorism involve a great deal of inter-agency collaboration and intelligence gathering.
	Having said that, we need to move beyond the numbers —not just how many are going, but who they are and why they matter. Sergeant Dave Hewitt, 32 years a police officer, being forced out at the age of 48, is a neighbourhood sergeant with an excellent team of neighbourhood police officers making their local community a safer place to live. Is he or is he not a front-line officer? Police Constable Ian Rees, 34 years a police officer, being forced out at the age of 55, is a motorway specialist making our motorways in the midlands a safer place to drive. Is he or is he not a front-line police officer?
	Detective Constable Tony Fisher, 33 years a police officer, being forced out at the age of 50, is a specialist in dealing with serious robbery. Only in the past couple of years, he mounted an exercise to track down the individual who was robbing pensioners at cash points and put that man away, and rightly so, for 13 years. He also tracked down the gang that used machetes to rob shops, with the leader of that gang going away for 17 years, and rightly so. The community is a safer place, thanks to him. Is he or is he not a front-line police officer?
	Detective Constable Tim Kennedy, 31 years a police officer, is a specialist in serious acquisitive crime—burglaries and cars—with one of the best detection records anywhere in the midlands. Is he or is he not a front-line police officer? Inspector Mark Stokes, 33 years a police officer, is a specialist in designing out crime, with an outstanding track record. On the Four Towers estate in Birmingham, for example, there has been a 98% fall in what was a serious level of crime, thanks to the work that he has done. Is he or is he not vital to the front line?
	I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing earlier that she will meet these A19 officers. She will find that they are the best in Birmingham and Britain. They will be sadly missed by the communities that they have served so well over many years. It is wrong—plain wrong—for the Government to say to the men and women being forced out under A19, “Thanks for your past loyalty. Thanks for your outstanding service. Here is your notice.” The Government have got to think again.

Mark Pawsey: Notwithstanding the remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the Opposition, whose motion we are debating this evening, know that it
	is not possible to have any discussion about any public sector service without having some regard to the national economic context. Colleagues on the Government Benches have mentioned the £120 million a day that the Government are spending on interest, which puts into context the £35 million a day that we are currently spending on policing, the matter under debate. All sectors of public service must be subject to review, and no sector can be immune. Policing must play its part.
	It is entirely appropriate that cost reduction should be accompanied by Government reform of the public services. No sector should be immune from the need to reform, and policing must play its part. I therefore reject the proposition in the Opposition motion that does nothing other than criticise the steps that the Government have taken. It offers no alternative proposal. The motion is completely silent on what the Opposition would do to make policing play its part in reducing the burden of public expenditure or reforms to the service. We might therefore assume that the Opposition are happy to carry on spending as they were before and make no change to public service, but we would be wrong, because the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said that all departments, police included, would need “to make savings”. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), has said that Labour in government would have cut spending and reduced police numbers.
	What are the Government actually doing? They are making the police accountable to their communities, cutting increasing costs, removing targets and paperwork and, critically, restoring to police officers the discretion they once had. In my constituency of Rugby we are governed by Warwickshire police, a force in which, notwithstanding the Opposition’s remarks, police numbers fell between 2004 and 2009, so there have not been massive increases in police numbers under the Labour Government. Warwickshire police are currently vacating an expensive and unnecessary force headquarters to save costs, and the chief constable is doing the right thing by focusing on public protection, providing service to the community and increasing productivity on the front line.
	One of the reasons I was keen to speak in the debate is that my brother is a sergeant in Warwickshire police with more than 20 years’ service. We often get together and speak about our respective roles. He tells me how he and his colleagues were frustrated by the previous Government’s tick-box approach and the massive increase in paperwork and bureaucracy that resulted in their spending less time on patrol than they did filling in forms. They were not doing what they had been trained to do—to protect the public. As a parliamentary candidate, I spent a Friday night accompanying an officer on patrol and saw just how much paperwork he had to complete.
	The police look forward to many of the Government’s proposals and reforms, in particular the one to get rid of the stop and encounter form. Officers appreciate that services must accept some of the reduction in expenditure and in the cost burden of the public sector. There are three significant issues that they are having to deal with. First, the restructuring in costs will lead to fewer people being able to support them in the back office and the pay freeze. Secondly, the provisions of the Winsor report,
	to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has just referred, will change the way they operate and the structure of their pay. Thirdly, over and above those effects officers will also be affected by the Hutton report, which in time will lead to less generous pension provision. I must tell the Home Secretary and the policing Minister that the combination of those three factors means that the morale of our officers is lower than it has been for some time. They understand the need for change, but they feel that they are burdened by those three changes all coming along at one time.
	I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary acknowledge in her opening remarks that we have the finest police service in the world. I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will express the regard in which the public hold the police, who are doing a difficult job at a difficult time. I hope that he will provide some reassurance to officers who are committed to service, such as my brother and his colleagues, that their commitment will be recognised. I hope that he will ensure that those officers who work hard and from time to time put themselves on the line can feel positive about the valuable role they play and can focus on the key task of protecting the public.
	In conclusion, the Government are right to be taking their current action on policing. It represents just one of a series of very difficult decisions that they have been obliged to take over the past 11 months, all of which in the long term will provide better and more efficient services to the public of this country.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who spoke about not only his constituency’s interest in the debate, but that of his family. He can report back to his brother that he was able to raise those concerns in such a debate.
	It is commendable that both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have sat through the entire debate, the feature of which is that Members on both sides have talked about not just the headline figures, but policing in their constituencies. On balance, Opposition Members have said that the cuts are going to affect policing negatively, and Government Members have said that the cuts are required to some extent because they can make the police more accountable, transparent and efficient.
	In four weeks’ time, the right hon. Lady will celebrate her year in office as the first Conservative Home Secretary in 13 years. She has got used to the fact that when she enters the Chamber for policing debates, she does not get a standing ovation, but importantly we have heard what the Government propose to do and what the Opposition have said they would do in similar circumstances.
	The Home Affairs Committee produced a report on police finances, and it was unanimous. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is our resident expert on policing matters along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and the Committee concluded that there would be significantly fewer police service staff once the proposals were implemented. That is certainly backed up by all the other stakeholder organisations—be they ACPO, the Police Federation or other organisations
	that have commented on the matter. The key test for the Government is whether having fewer staff will make the police force more efficient.
	I do not deny any incoming Government the right to put forward proposals to the British people and a scheme that they say will provide a better service for less money, but it will be some time before we find out what those key indicators are. As several Members have pointed out, crime is at a record low, and the question is, once the proposals are implemented, whether crime will rise. That is the challenge for this Government.
	We also know that the Government’s proposals have still not been completed. There is an ambitious target not just on police finances, but on the new landscape of policing, and the election of police commissioners will have an impact on how policing operates—everyone accepts that it will. The new landscape will result in the abolition of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency, and the Home Affairs Committee is just about to undertake an inquiry into the likely new landscape.
	I think that we will have to return to the subject once the Government have completed their template. As I have said, it is absolutely the right of an incoming Government to say that they propose to use taxpayers’ money in a way that will make the service more efficient, but my concern is that the template is not complete and, to some extent, the proposed cuts—or reductions, if we like to use that word—are a work in progress. We will not know the full effects until the rest of the landscape has been completed.
	What the Government are doing on procurement and on the reduction in bureaucracy is excellent. The Home Secretary says that she has taken on board Jan Berry’s recommendations and appointed Chris Sims to take the matter forward, and that is a continuation of what the previous Government did. I see the previous Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), is present, and whenever he got to the Dispatch Box when Labour was in government, he talked about cutting red tape. We on the Select Committee hope to look at Jan Berry’s recommendations to see whether they have been implemented and whether red tape has been cut.
	Tomorrow, as the Home Secretary knows, we have the new permanent secretary at the Home Office before the Committee. It is of course important to save money on procurement and I would like to have seen more done under the previous Government to bring procurement under much greater central control. The right hon. Lady talked about local decision making, but I understand that vehicles are now the subject of central planning, so the Home Office is saying, “You can buy these vehicles, because this is the best possible deal that we have been able to make.” If that can be done with vehicles, why not mobile phones or all other aspects of procurement? Of course we would like to see local police forces collaborate—the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood reminded me that a conference on procurement is coming up in the near future, co-sponsored by Essex and Kent police authorities—and we want local decision making, but I cannot understand why the Home Office does not produce a procurement catalogue that has the best possible prices available and encourage all local police forces to buy from it. That is something that we will have to look forward to in future.
	My final point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made better than anyone else, is that we need to stop consulting only chief constables about what is happening. The people who really matter are the public. In his recent speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice rejected the idea of a royal commission on policing, citing Harold Wilson’s comment that royal commissions take minutes to set up but years to report. We do not need to wait years to hear about the expectations of the public, who must be consulted.
	The Select Committee intends to consult the public in an online poll on the five key things that they want police officers and the police force to do. Once we have those conclusions, I hope that they will feed into the Government’s thinking on how the new landscape operates. Without consulting the public on their expectations, there is no point in having this debate. The chief constables have a vested interest—they want to protect their budgets. Police authorities want things to stay as they are, and everyone else involved has, to some extent, the same interest. However, it is the public to whom we are accountable on policing, and therefore, in the end, it is the public to whom we have to listen.

Vernon Coaker: I join the Home Secretary in the tribute that she paid to the police for their hard work and courage, which we have seen, tragically, over the past couple of days.
	This debate takes place at a time when the police feel undervalued and under attack by this Government. Let me start by laying out a few facts. There is a 20% cut from central Government, with the highest percentage of that cut falling in the first two years, and the Government implementing it with no real definition of the front line. That will mean the loss of over 12,000 police officers. In every region of England and Wales, police officers and staff will be lost in every community. This means the loss of over 15,000 police staff—again, right across our country in every single community. As we heard so eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), it also means the loss of over 2,000 of the most experienced officers.
	These officers are not going because chief officers want them to go—they are being forced to go because of the need to cut costs. The functions of most of these officers are not in the back office but on the front line. Front-line detectives are gone, with one detective saying “I don’t want to go and I’m absolutely gutted.” Front-line response officers are gone, along with neighbourhood sergeants, one commenting that the claim that cuts would not affect the front line was absolute rubbish. Firearms officers are gone from the front line, along with crime reduction officers and public order officers—and so the list goes on. These are just some of the front-line posts lost because of the cuts.
	To listen to the Home Secretary, one would think that there is no impact on police officers—that there are no cuts on the front line—but her case is completely undermined by last week’s report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which showed that 95% of police officers and police community support officers
	did not work in the back office, with only 5% doing so.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice scoffs, but I refer him to page 4 of the report, which shows clearly that the percentage of officers and PCSOs who are in the back office is 5%. If he wants to take issue with that, he must take issue with HMIC. That figure drives a coach and horses through the Home Office’s justification for its proposals. The proposals were undermined by Sir Denis O’Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, who said that it would be difficult to protect the front line. The Government plough on regardless, oblivious to the growing chorus of anxiety and deaf to those who are expressing increasing concern and alarm. “We know best,” is the motto of the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out the impact of the police cuts across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) praised the work of specialist officers, but pointed out the threat to the reduction in violent crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) spoke about the impact on Northumbria, where there is a 41% cut in police staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) pointed out the cuts to hundreds of police officers and police staff in the Lancashire constabulary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) pointed out the importance of the introduction of neighbourhood policing and safer neighbourhood teams, which was one of the successes of the previous Government. The budgets pose a threat to those teams. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) spoke about the impact of the cuts on Merseyside, where one in five officers is to go. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said that the jury is out on the current proposals. He was right to point out that crime is at a record low, but the question is whether it will keep falling. At a time when crime is at a record low, all this is put at risk.
	As the chief constable of South Yorkshire police, Meredydd Hughes, warned in a paper to his police authority, front-line posts and specialist officers will be lost, and there will be real risks to crime levels. He said:
	“A reduction in back office support will put an increased burden on operational officers detracting them from front-line duties.”
	No doubt the Government will say, as they do when anybody disagrees with them, that he is just wrong. Well, I know Med Hughes and he is an excellent chief constable. He should be listened to and not dismissed. It is not just one chief constable. The chief constable of Lancashire police, Steve Finnigan, said on the “Today” programme last week, in answer to whether he would have to reduce front-line policing to meet the Government’s budget cuts, “I absolutely am.”
	Of course, the protection of the front line is made so much more difficult by the loss of police staff. Who will do the necessary administrative tasks? Who will do the necessary probation work or the court reports? We have seen examples across the country of officers being needed to do such tasks and being pulled away from the public and the front line. No reorganisation on this scale will protect the front line. We have already seen
	that in Warwickshire. Reflecting on the job losses in his area, Ian Francis, the chair of Warwickshire police authority, said:
	“The simple matter is yes, we are going to lose policemen from the front-line.”
	The Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association, chief officers and police authorities have all warned of the consequences of this Budget settlement. However, as with so many of their so-called reforms, the Government say that they know best. They believe that they know what is right and that they have to drive through all those who stand in the way of this so-called progress. Last week, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice called those who oppose the Government’s accountability changes and other reforms elitist. Well, I say that the Government are elitist in their flagrant disregard for anyone who disagrees with them and anyone who stands in their way. The police and the public are deeply worried by the cuts to policing.
	No one in this House of Commons, as far as I am aware, stood on a platform of having fewer police officers. The Liberals promised 3,000 more police officers—yet another broken promise. Individual Tory MPs up and down the country demanded more police officers. Tory MPs need to be sure what they are voting for, and so do Liberal Democrats.
	I say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) that 250 personnel will be gone in his police area. He should put that on the leaflet in the local election campaign. In Carshalton and Wallington, police officers and staff are going—that should be on the next Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflet. In Reading West, 256 officers and 564 staff are going at Thames Valley police—its Member should put that on the next leaflet and say it is down to efficiency. Although the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was more reasonable than others, he will still have to put on his election leaflets for the Amber Valley borough council election why he justifies 290 police officers and staff going in the area. I tell you what, Mr Speaker—I bet not many of them do put that on their leaflets.
	Up and down the country, people are watching—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary should listen to this. People are watching a Tory-led Government cutting police numbers and crime prevention projects. They are looking at a Tory-led Government who cannot find money for the police but can finds of millions of pounds extra for a democratic experiment in electing police and crime commissioners that nobody wants and for which the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has yet to produce one shred of evidence. [Interruption.] Are you enjoying this? The Government were so embarrassed that the responses to the consultation paper commissioned to show how many people were in favour of elected commissioners were not published. Shall I tell the House why? Because of the 900 people asked, so few were in favour that the Government were embarrassed to publish the responses.
	The cuts to the police budget are too fast and too deep. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister need to think again. They need to put aside ideology, listen to the many voices of concern and change course. The Government are looking to cut costs, but it is communities up and down the country that will pay the price of an arrogant Government failing to stand up for policing and failing to stand up for the police.

Nick Herbert: First, I join other hon. Members including the shadow Police Minister in paying tribute to the police for the job that they do for the whole country in every constituency, particularly at this time when, as the House did earlier, we remember PC Ronan Kerr, who tragically lost his life serving the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	We should always value the work that the police do and remember that they do a difficult and dangerous job, but none of that means that we can avoid the decisions that have been forced upon us by the need to deal with the deficit. My first point to Opposition Members is that they are silent about the savings that can be driven by police forces working together and individually that reach beyond the savings identified in the HMIC report. That report stated that savings of more than £1 billion a year were possible while front-line services were protected. It did not examine the potential savings that could be made through, for instance, police forces working together to procure goods and equipment—some £350 million on top of that figure.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, there are 2,000 different IT systems in our forces, employing 5,000 staff. I welcome the comment of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), that we were right to examine such procurement. He should know, and I know he does, that we have already laid regulations to drive collective procurement by forces to save money.
	I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition, who have not heard or understood the point, that those savings are in addition to those identified by the inspectorate, and that they can be made by police forces working more effectively together. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) criticised that approach when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about it earlier. Do the Opposition Front Benchers not support that collective approach to procuring goods and equipment, and why did they not take it in their 13 years in government?
	Let us examine another matter on which the Opposition are completely silent, which is the proposed savings that we have set out in relation to pay. Any organisation in which three quarters of the costs rest in the pay bill has to look to control that bill when resources are tight. That is the responsible thing to do. That is why we have said that, in common with other public services, we expect the police to be subject to a two-year pay freeze. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was right that that directly answers the point about the savings that we require forces to make being higher in the first and second years than in the third and the fourth. In those years, we propose that another £350 million should be saved through the pay freeze. Here is a question for the Opposition: do they support that pay freeze? If not, they would put more jobs at risk in policing. They are adopting an irresponsible approach.
	What about the Winsor savings? Police officers should know that it is proposed to plough back the majority of the savings that Tom Winsor identified in his report on pay and conditions into new allowances to reward
	front-line service and specialist skills. We will consider those matters carefully in the recommendations of the Police Negotiating Board. Do the Opposition back those savings, for which police forces have not budgeted at the moment? Do they support those proposals in the Winsor review? Again, we do not know because the Opposition are silent on the matter.
	Let me explain for the benefit of the Opposition that the total effect of the savings of more than £500 million, on top of the savings that HMIC identified, add up to 10,000 officers. In opposing the pay reforms, the Opposition put those 10,000 jobs at risk. That is why their position is untenable.
	Several hon. Members mentioned the front line. Of course, it includes not only visible policing but investigative units. However, the Opposition have again completely missed the point. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) shouts “smoke and mirrors” from a sedentary position, but he uses a fair bit himself when he claims that 5% of officers are in the back office. Does he expect officers to do IT and payroll? Those are back-office functions. The inspectorate says, “Look at the back and middle offices—the support functions—not the front line.” How many police officers does the hon. Gentleman think are serving in the back and middle office? The same report tells him—I assume that he has read it. A fifth of officers and PCSOs are in the back and middle office. In case he cannot do the maths, that means that 30,000 police officers are not working on the front line, and we should begin looking for savings in the back and middle office so that we can protect front-line services.
	The Opposition mentioned Northumbria police and claimed that there would be an impact on front-line services. Chief Constable Sue Sim said:
	“I am absolutely committed to maintaining frontline policing and the services we offer to our communities.”
	Every chief constable is saying the same. They are committed to doing everything they can to maintain front-line services.
	As the chief inspector of constabulary said, we must consider a total redesign of the way in which policing is delivered in this country. We must look at forces sharing services and collaborating. We must consider radical solutions, which will enable a better service to be delivered. Is the Labour party in favour of police forces outsourcing their services to the private sector? That is another matter on which it is silent. Some forces have contracted our their control rooms and their custody suites. Those are defined as being in the so-called front line. Is the Labour party in favour of those cost-saving measures? There is deafening silence from the Opposition when they are faced with difficult questions about how to drive value for money.
	There is silence again about bureaucracy. The Opposition spent 13 years tying up our police officers in red tape. All the shadow Chancellor could say about that when he was shadow Home Secretary is that he did not think it mattered that officers spent more time on paperwork than on patrol. Let me say to the Opposition that the Government think it does matter and we are determined to reduce red tape and improve productivity on the front line because we want police officers to be crime fighters, not form writers.
	Let us look at another matter in which the Opposition seem simply uninterested: how resources are deployed. Labour is only ever interested in how much money is spent rather than in how well it is spent. Why, therefore, do Labour Members have not the slightest interest in the fact that officer visibility and availability in the best-performing forces are twice those of the poorest-performing forces within the existing resource? Apparently, they are not interested in that. Government Members have consistently made the point that, even as resources contract and even as forces find savings, they can and should prioritise visible and available policing, and good forces are doing so.
	As we have heard from my hon. Friends, Kent is increasing numbers in neighbourhood policing teams, as is Gloucestershire, and Staffordshire is protecting them.

Yvette Cooper: The Minister says that good police forces are doing all the things he wants, but what does he say about the Warwickshire, South Yorkshire and Merseyside police forces, and all forces that are being forced to take police officers off the front line? Does he think that those chief constables are doing a bad job?

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady just does not get it, does she? She does not understand the difference between how much is spent and the service that we get at the other end, because Labour measures the value of every public service by how much is being spent on it.
	Let me tell the right hon. Lady what the South Yorkshire chief constable said in January this year. He said that
	“the reduced level of government funding announced late last year was expected and I’m confident that our service to the public won’t necessarily decline over the next two years.”
	Let us look at the sums. Labour Members always say that there will be 20% cuts in budgets.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Herbert: I shall make a little more progress, and then give way.
	The Labour party says that there will be 20% cuts in budgets—that is the language that Labour Members always use—but there will not be. No force will have a 20% cut in its budget, because forces raise money from their precept. Assuming reasonable rises in precept over the next four years, the cash reduction is 6%. Provided that forces do the right things, that is challenging but nevertheless deliverable.

Yvette Cooper: The Minister again says that some police forces are doing the right thing, and some the wrong thing. He referred to Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes of South Yorkshire police, who said this week:
	“We will be unable to continue to provide the same level of service we do today in such areas like neighbourhood policing”
	and diversionary and problem-solving activities. He also said:
	“A reduction in back office support will put an increased burden on operational officers detracting them from frontline duties.”
	Is the South Yorkshire chief constable right or wrong?

Nick Herbert: It is the same tired stuff from the shadow Home Secretary, reading out local press cuttings from around the country. She should reflect on the fact that police officer numbers were falling under the previous Government by the time we got to the election. In their last year in office, officer numbers fell in 27 forces across England and Wales—did we hear a squeak from them about that?—and officer numbers fell in 13 police forces in the five years before 2009.
	This is what the public need to know about Labour. It would cut police budgets by £1.5 billion—we heard that this evening—and yet Labour Members pretend that that would not mean fewer officers and staff. When asked in the election campaign, Labour refused to guarantee police numbers, yet Labour Members criticise the fall in numbers now. Labour Members say that cuts are too deep and front-loaded, yet they would be cutting £9 for every £10 we will cut next year; they claim that police and crime commissioners would cost too much, but their model would cost more; and they call Opposition debates and run their cynical campaigns, but they—

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.  36 ).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 210, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)),That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 282, Noes 209.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Speaker declared the Main question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31( 2 )).
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government’s comprehensive proposals to cut crime and increase the democratic accountability of policing while dealing with the largest peacetime deficit in history; supports the Government’s determination to help the police make savings to protect frontline services; congratulates the police forces that are increasing the number of officers visible and available to the public; notes that the Opposition’s spending plans require reductions in police spending; and regrets its refusal to support sensible savings or to set out an alternative.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Services

That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulators) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.—(Mr  Newmark.)
	Question agreed to.

BRADLEY MANNING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

Ann Clwyd: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this issue, because it is important that the case is raised here in the House of Commons. I want to talk about the treatment of Bradley Manning. An early-day motion on this subject—early-day motion1624—stands in my name and is currently supported by 37 right hon. and hon. Members, and I hope that others will add their names.
	I wish to speak this evening in terms very similar terms to those of the early-day motion, which reads as follows:
	“That this House expresses great concern at the treatment of Private First Class Bradley Manning, currently detained at the US Quantico Marine Base; notes the increasing level of interest and concern in the case in the UK and in particular in Wales; appeals to the US administration to ensure that his detention conditions are humane; and calls on the UK Government to raise the case with the US administration.”
	That is what I want to expand on in this short debate. I want to explain why I am so concerned about Bradley Manning’s case and why others should be too, and I want to ask the Minister to undertake to raise the case with the US Administration.
	Bradley Manning is the US soldier imprisoned at the US marine base at Quantico, Virginia. He is accused of being the person responsible for the leaking of the US Government information—about Iraq and about Afghanistan, and from US embassies around the world—that was released into the public domain through the website WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning is a serving member of the US armed forces and he is detained in a military prison. It is important for us to note that he has yet to be convicted of any offence—I am not sure whether there is a confirmed trial date, but I understand that it will not be until May or June.
	Like me, the Minister will want to be careful about describing the actions of which Bradley Manning is accused, because we have yet to have Bradley’s account and he has still to have that account considered by a court. That is why I do not want us to get drawn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the WikiLeaks revelations. However, I would like to concentrate on the current conditions of detention for Bradley Manning. I have read the several accounts of Bradley’s treatment which have appeared in the press. Some very good accounts that have appeared in The Guardian have come from David Leigh, in particular, but the one that I paid most attention to was the one from Bradley himself. On 10 March, in an 11-page memorandum from Bradley Manning to the commanding officer of the Quantico marine base, issued through his lawyer, Bradley Manning described for us the conditions of his detention. This is what he said:
	“Since 2 March 2011, I have been stripped of all my clothing at night. I have been told that the PCF commander intends on continuing this practice indefinitely. Initially, after surrendering my clothing to the brig guards, I had no choice but to lay naked in my cold jail cell until the following morning. The next morning I was told to get out of my bed for the morning duty brig supervisor (DBS) inspection. I was not given any of my clothing back. I got out of the bed and immediately started to shiver because of how cold it was in my cell. I walked towards the front of my cell with
	my hands covering my genitals. The guard told me to stand at parade rest, which required me to stand with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder width apart. I stood at ‘parade rest’ for about three minutes until the DBS arrived. Once the DBS arrived, everyone was called to attention. The DBS and the other guards walked past my cell. The DBS looked at me, paused for a moment, and then continued to the next detainee’s cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked. After the DBS completed his inspection, I was told to go and sit on my bed. About 10 minutes later I was given my clothes and allowed to get dressed…Under my current restrictions, in addition to being stripped at night, I am essentially held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, I sit alone in my cell. The guards check on me every five minutes during the day by asking me if I am OK. I am required to respond in some affirmative manner.”

Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Clwyd: I have very little time, but yes, I will.

Jim Shannon: Is the right hon. Lady aware of when the trial will take place?

Ann Clwyd: No, I do not yet know that, but I think that it will be in a couple of months’ time.
	Bradley Manning’s account continued:
	“At night, if the guards cannot see me clearly, because I have a blanket over my head or I am curled up towards the wall, they will wake me in order to ensure that I am OK…I am prevented from exercising in my cell. If I attempt to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise I am forced to stop. Finally, I receive only one hour of exercise outside of my cell daily. My exercise is usually limited to me walking figures of eight in an empty room.”
	We also learn from this memorandum, issued through his lawyer, that his treatment ignores the repeated recommendations of the Marine Corps’ own appointed psychiatrists. They repeatedly say that Bradley Manning’s detention status should be changed. That treatment serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade Bradley Manning. I regard it as cruel and unnecessary.
	Bradley Manning calls his conditions “improper treatment” and “unlawful pre-trial punishment”. Human Rights Watch has called on the US Government to
	“explain the precise reasons behind extremely restrictive and possibly punitive and degrading treatment that Army Private First Class Bradley Manning alleges he has received”.
	Amnesty International has said:
	“Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn’t even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime”.
	The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, who I have spoken to in the House of Commons about the case, has officially raised his concerns with the US Administration and is awaiting a response.
	We have not only those views but a view from inside the US Administration. Until recently, P. J. Crowley was the spokesman for the US State Department. He was a senior and well respected official and a career member of the US armed forces. Early in March he was forced to resign following comments he made about the treatment of Bradley Manning at a university seminar. He called the treatment of Bradley Manning “ridiculous”, “counterproductive” and “stupid”.
	Since his resignation, P. J. Crowley has gone on to explain why he said what he did, including in a column in The Guardian last week. He says:
	“As a public diplomat and (until recently) spokesman of the department of state, I was responsible for explaining the national security policy of the United States to the American people and populations abroad. I am also a retired military officer who has long believed that our civilian power must balance our military power. Part of our strength comes from international recognition that the United States practises what we preach.”
	He goes on:
	“Based on 30 years of government experience, if you have to explain why a guy is standing naked in the middle of a jail cell, you have a policy in need of urgent review.”
	Finally, he says:
	“So, when I was asked…I said the treatment of Private Manning, while well-intentioned, was ‘ridiculous’ and ‘counterproductive’ and, yes, ‘stupid’.
	I stand by what I said.”
	In the article and the interviews he has given, P. J. Crowley—a career US military and Government man—sets out why Bradley Manning’s case is important. It is important because of the message it sends to the rest of the world about what kind of treatment the United States thinks is acceptable for people in detention. As for us, it is important what we say—or what we do not say—because of the message that it sends about the kind of treatment we in the United Kingdom and in the UK Government think is acceptable. That matters in countries where human rights are not so well observed. People will pay attention in China, in Russia, in Libya, where we want to be on the side of those fighting for freedom from state repression, and most of all in Afghanistan. The image that Britain and the US have in the world matters to the UK and US service personnel fighting in Afghanistan.
	I know that only too well from my experience in Iraq as special envoy on human rights over a seven-year period. In my view some of the greatest damage was caused to British and American efforts in Iraq when the stories of prisoner abuse emerged. It undermined our moral authority at a time when we needed to explain that we were fighting for a better future for Iraq, free from the torture and abuse suffered under the regime of Saddam Hussein. The United States and the UK, in the way we respond to US actions, need to preserve that moral authority if we are to have a positive impact on the world and lead by example.
	So what am I asking the Minister to do? Let me address the issue of British nationality, because it seems to me to have been something of a red herring. I am not raising Bradley Manning’s case because he is a British national but because I believe his treatment is cruel and unnecessary and that we should say so. I am also chair of the all-party group on human rights and so I often raise human rights cases from around the world. They might be in Burma, Chechnya, East Timor, China, or, sadly, too many other places besides. I do not raise them because they involve British citizens, but because they involve human rights abuses or wrongdoing and because I am in politics because I want to do something to try to stop those things happening.
	I want the British Government to raise Bradley Manning’s treatment with the US Administration because his treatment is cruel and unnecessary and we should be saying so. We cannot deny, however, that Bradley’s connection to the UK adds an additional dimension.
	Bradley’s mother, Susan, is Welsh and lives in Pembrokeshire. Bradley lived and went to school in Wales between the ages of 13 and 17. There is a great deal of interest in the UK, and in particular in Wales, in Bradley’s case and much of that is grounded in his close connection to the UK. Both London and Wrexham have seen protests against Bradley Manning’s treatment, and I pay tribute to those people in the UK who have raised his case.
	Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify, on the record, just what the position is with regard to British nationality. My understanding is that under the British Nationality Act 1981 anyone born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 who has a mother who is a UK citizen by birth is British by descent. Perhaps the Minister will assist us by confirming that that is the case. I am aware that Bradley Manning’s lawyer has issued a statement that Bradley is not asserting any kind of UK nationality. I know that, but from the point of view of British law, is it the case that Bradley Manning qualifies for British nationality?
	I shall mention briefly the British aspect of the case, which concerns Bradley’s mother and family in Wales. I have met some of Bradley’s family—his aunt and uncle—and I am in contact with them. This will be an exceptionally hard time for Bradley Manning’s family, not just for his mother and family in Wales, but for his father and that side of his family in the United States. He is accused of the gravest of crimes which, according to some reports, can attract the death penalty, and there is intense media interest in Bradley, in anything to do with WikiLeaks and in the information that was revealed about the US Government.
	Part of Bradley’s family live in Pembrokeshire and their son is in a military prison in Virginia in the US. They are being contacted by journalists, campaigners and politicians who are trying to raise the case. This is a difficult situation for any family to deal with. What kind of consular, official or other support could be made available to Bradley’s mother and family? When they visit Bradley in the US, for example, can they expect assistance from British embassy staff in the US? Can they receive advice and assistance in understanding the charges faced by their son, and perhaps advice, too, about the issue of British nationality?
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that in his reply he does not say that we do not know what Bradley Manning’s conditions are. We have his own statement, backed by his lawyer, from which I read earlier. I am sure the Minister will not try to defend the harsh treatment that Bradley Manning is experiencing because of the gravity of the charges. That is beside the point. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not try to say that as he is not a British citizen, it is not appropriate to raise Bradley Manning’s case with the US Administration, because we raise cases with other countries all the time. I hope he will not fail to acknowledge that Bradley Manning’s having lived for a time in the UK, and given that his mother and that side of his family are British, creates an additional obligation on the Government to act in that family’s best interests.
	I hope that the Minister can give two undertakings tonight—first, that the British Government will officially raise the case with the US Administration, and secondly, that the Government will consider what support they could provide to the British family of Bradley Manning as they try to do whatever they can to help Bradley.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing the debate, which is of considerable interest not just to a number of right hon. and hon. Members but to her constituents and others in Wales, as well as to the country as a whole. The right hon. Lady is deservedly well respected for her understanding and championing of human rights. Her work in Afghanistan and Iraq is widely admired.
	As the Foreign Secretary said last week during the launch of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s report on human rights:
	“Our government promised from the outset a foreign policy that will always have support for human rights and poverty reduction at its irreducible core. It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience, and neither is it in our interests.”
	I therefore welcome this chance to discuss matters that give rise to concern among Members of the House. Although recent events in the middle east and north Africa continue to demand the attention of my ministerial colleagues, it is important that we do not lose sight of developments elsewhere in the world, including in the countries that are closest to us.
	The right hon. Lady makes a number of points about the treatment of Private Manning, including those from a memo of 10 March 2011 from Private Manning to his commanding officer, released by Private Manning’s lawyer. I have read the memo and have listened carefully to the different points that the right hon. Lady has made, including allegations of mistreatment in detention.
	Her Majesty’s Government are committed to working towards the eradication of mistreatment that may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. We do not condone its use for any purposes. We take allegations extremely seriously and, where appropriate, raise general and specific concerns with foreign Governments. That is why we fund work to support professional and ethical policing. We also fund human rights approaches to prison management and initiatives to support a robust legal system and civil society, including an independent judiciary, which all contribute to tackling mistreatment.
	As far as Her Majesty’s Government are concerned, the conditions in which an individual is detained must meet international standards. Conditions that fail to meet this standard may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is particularly important for an individual in pre-trial detention. The manner in which a detainee is held depends on an objective assessment of the security risk posed by that individual, their health and their behaviour in prison. This must be justified by the detaining authority. In general, we are content that conditions in the US detention system meet international standards and that there is a clear legal process for a detainee to be able to challenge their conditions of detention.
	In this case, President Obama himself has said that he has sought and received assurances from the Department of Defence that Private Manning’s treatment is “appropriate” and meets US “basic standards”. Of course, the United States has an effective and robust judicial system. It is a champion of human rights the
	world over. However, where crimes are alleged to have occurred they must be investigated. This is currently the case. The fact that we have seen the memo from Private Manning to his commanding officer is evidence that his legal representation is working. We must allow the legal case to follow its course without interference.
	Where representatives of this House or members of the public have concerns, we have a duty to listen. On 16 March the right hon. Lady raised her concerns about Private Manning’s treatment with the Foreign Secretary during the oral evidence session of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and on 17 March she repeated her call for discussion of the issue during business questions. Be assured that we are in no doubt of her concerns, which we know are shared by a number of Members across the House. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has already received more than 30 letters from Members of the House.
	In line with the Foreign Secretary’s response to the right hon. Lady during the Foreign Affairs Committee evidence session, a senior official in our embassy in Washington called on the US State Department on 29 March. He drew its attention to her concerns over Private Manning and handed over a copy of the uncorrected transcript of the Committee’s oral evidence session and a copy of her early-day motion 1624, which was tabled on 17 March. He also drew attention to the debate taking place today as a measure of the level of parliamentary interest in the subject. The State Department took note and agreed to convey the information to all those dealing with the case. Our US interlocutors know that where we have concerns we will raise them. The strength of our relationship empowers us to discuss difficult issues and we will continue to raise concerns where and when necessary. However, let us be clear that President Obama has stated that he has received assurances that Private Manning’s treatment is meeting basic standards.
	I know that there will be many who feel that we should do more in the light of reports of Private Manning’s links to the UK. The UK Government have a duty to protect his privacy and as such it would not be appropriate to discuss his nationality without his consent. I note that his lawyer wrote on his blog on 2 February:
	“Private… Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen”.
	Therefore, it is clear that he is neither asking for our help, nor considering himself to be British. Although I have said that we do not normally discuss a person’s nationality without their consent, I will say that the right hon. Lady’s understanding of the British Nationality Act 1981 is accurate. Any person born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 whose mother is a UK citizen by birth is British by descent.

Julian Lewis: May I, from the Government Benches, urge the Minister to convey to our American friends and allies that those of us who believe that, if Private Manning is guilty of the leakage of which he is charged, he did a very terrible thing indeed, are nevertheless convinced that it is fatal to snatch defeat from the jaws of a sort-of victory by focusing attention on the conditions in which he is being held, rather than on the question of the guilt or innocence of his conduct? The word “counter-productive” should be at the forefront of our American allies’ minds when they consider how to treat him.

Henry Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for his very wise remarks. He is a candid friend of our American allies, and his points are very well made. All people who are detained in custody deserve to be treated in detention according to the highest international standards, and we certainly expect nothing else—nothing less—from the United States.
	To return to the point about Private Manning’s nationality, we must respect his wishes on the matter and recognise the limitations on UK involvement. The right hon. Lady mentions Mr Manning’s family. We have not had a direct request from them, but obviously, if it comes to consular assistance of any kind, we will look at that request as and when one is made.
	Private Manning is serving in the US armed forces and has been detained in the US while he is subject to legal proceedings. He has access to legal counsel who, from the reports I have seen, appear to be very active in defending his case. That case is ongoing, and we are confident in this instance that US judicial processes are sound.
	In the light of the right hon. Lady’s representations tonight, I will instruct our officials at our embassy in Washington again to report the concerns of this House to officials in the State Department. I will also discuss with the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who has responsibility for north America, what else we might be able to do, while respecting the views of Private Manning and his legal counsel.
	I can assure the right hon. Lady that we are concerned: we have listened very carefully to what she has said before; I have listened to what she has said tonight; and, as I assured her a moment ago, in response to that we will instruct our officials at our embassy in Washington again to report our concerns to officials in the State Department.
	Once again, I thank the right hon. Lady for raising the issue. I hope that what I have said is of some help and of some interest to her.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.